Page:Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) (2023, FCA).pdf/103

Thank you. In relation to the body that you saw at E first, do you recall, sitting here today, any identifying features of that body?---No.

In relation to the body that you have marked as being at point F, do you recall any identifying features of that body?---No.

…

What I want to put to you for the moment is just this: that once you came to learn that the body at point E had been engaged by Person 14, at that point, you understood that if Mr Roberts-Smith's account was correct, there would be three bodies outside that corner of Whisky 108; correct?---No, that is correct, Mr Owens, but I would like to add that I've only, like, at the start of my visit here in Sydney was the first time that I had been informed that the EKIA at position E was engaged and killed by Person 14.

I don't dispute that and, indeed, I put to you that it is the fact that you have only recently been informed that that EKIA was Person 14s that you have come to court and given evidence that you have no recollection whatsoever of any distinguishing features of either of the bodies that you saw?---That is not correct.

Because you realised, didn't you, that you had already committed to seeing only two bodies outside Whisky 108?---I can only recall seeing two bodies outside of Whisky 108.

And you knew for a fact, didn't you, that one of those bodies was the man with the prosthetic leg; correct?---No, that is not correct.

You certainly knew that in July 2019, didn't you?---No, I did not. My – my statement of evidence states that I was aware that one of the EKIA had a prosthetic leg. Without, you know, quoting or paraphrasing that statement, I can't recall – in court I can't recall whether that body was one of the bodies I saw. I can only recall two bodies coming outside Whisky 108.

Look at paragraph 24 of your outline that you approved. It says you recall seeing the bodies of the two insurgents, including the insurgent with the prosthetic leg; correct?---Yes. That's what that paragraph says. Yes.

And in July 2019 you had a very clear recollection that one of the bodies you had seen was the man with the prosthetic leg; correct?---Not a – not a – I can't say I had a clear recollection. But, as it says there in paragraph 24, yes, I recall seeing that.

What I'm putting to you is that the reason you have come to tell his Honour that you now do not have any recollection about anything to do with the two bodies you saw is because you have realised that saying that poses a problem for Mr Roberts-Smith's case; correct?---No. That is not correct.

Now, what I want to put to you is that you knew and still know full well that the body you saw around point F was the body of the man with the prosthetic leg; correct?---That is not correct.

And you knew that there were photographs of that man that would show clearly that that is exactly where he was; correct?---That is not correct.

And what you did was come to court and deliberately lie to his Honour to try to leave open the possibility that the body you saw was, in fact, the body of the old man?---That is not correct, your Honour.

And what I want to put to you is that you've changed your account as given under oath to his Honour from the account in your outline because you were trying to help

---