334 In his cross-examination, Person 35 said that if he was placing the cordon, he would place it to the north, but further away from the compound.
335 This is a convenient context in which to identify certain evidence given by Person 29 which was unsatisfactory. I say that because it is linked to what Person 14 could or could not see from his stationary position.
336 The respondents submit that at the time Person 29 gave his outline of evidence, he believed that there were two insurgents outside the north-western corner or exit of W108. At that time, he was unaware that Person 14 had engaged EKIA50. He gave an account in which he said that he saw the dead body of the insurgent with the prosthetic leg. At the trial, he denied being able to identify either body. That was, according to the respondents, because he was aware by that time that Person 14 had engaged EKIA50.
337 In his outline of evidence, Person 29 made statements as to the location of Person 6's patrol of which Person 14 was a member and asserted that Person 14 could not have seen anything that occurred outside the northern end of W108. In his outline of evidence, Person 29 said the following:
24 I recall seeing the bodies of the two insurgents, including the insurgent with the prosthetic leg, as my patrol exited W108, using the exit on the north-west side. The man with the prosthetic leg was a middle-aged FAM. The Applicant and members of his patrol were near the bodies. My patrol then moved out and proceeded to clear W109.
25 Based on the location of Person 14's patrol, I do not know how Person 14 could have seen anything that occurred outside the northern end of W108. The two bodies that I observed were not within visual of the southern entry point of the compound because of the presence of the compound's walls and the thick vegetation surrounding the compound. While the dividing wall in the middle of the compound was damaged from the bombs, the other external walls were largely intact.
338 Person 29's evidence at the trial was that he could not see where Person 6's patrol was at the time he made entry. Under cross-examination, Person 29 gave the following evidence:
What I want to put to you is that, in fact, you colluded with Mr Roberts-Smith to agree that the entry point was where you've marked it at letter A; do you agree with that?---No, I don't agree with that.
And that was what you were doing when Mr Roberts-Smith sent you that email with the marked-up image of Whisky 108 showing the entry point at that location, correct?---No, that is not correct.
And I want to put to you that at the time you approved your outline of evidence which stated that entry was made at around point A, you knew that Person 14 had said that
