W109, he saw another body near the applicant and Person 4 was not supported by any other evidence, except for the initial evidence of the applicant that both bodies were dragged back. These matters concerning Person 5's evidence are in addition to his evidence that the applicant's contemporaneous account was that EKIA56 and EKIA57 were "squirters" who were "running away" from the compound.
860 Person 29's evidence cannot be reconciled with the applicant's account or those of some of his other witnesses. I have already referred to his evidence that he did not recall hearing the engagement, but he did recall hearing a radio call reporting the engagement. That occurred whilst Person 29 was involved in the clearance, or the exploitation, of the tunnel. If there had been an engagement, Person 29 would have heard the engagement from the tunnel courtyard in circumstances where the applicant was using an unsuppressed Minimi machine-gun. The applicant himself said that his weapon was loud as he did not have a suppressor. He gave this evidence in the context of being asked about whether he reported the engagement. Person 41 also said that a Minimi makes a loud noise. It is a weapon that does not have a suppressor on it and it can be heard some distance away. The applicant was carrying a Minimi. Person 14 said that the Minimi is a loud weapon which has a distinctive sound. Person 29 said that, although he could not recall "specifically", he was sure that Person 81 referred to the engagements at the Commanders' RV and insurgents coming in from the northeast. As previously stated, Person 5 said that the engagements happened during the Commanders' RV and Person 81 said that he could not recall receiving any reports of engagements taking place while he was inside the compound.
861 Person 35's evidence was largely restricted to the proposition that no men were found in the tunnel. He could not recall hearing any Minimi fire and could not recall seeing any bodies. He does not provide any express support for the applicant's account beyond the proposition that there were no men in the tunnel.
862 Person 38's evidence was that after he had seen the applicant and Persons 5, 29 and 35 in the vicinity of the tunnel, and after Person 35 had gone into the tunnel and come back up and said "clear", he and Person 41 cleared the orchard area immediately adjacent to the courtyard area. Having regard to the applicant's evidence and the short time Person 35 was in the tunnel initially, that would mean that Persons 38 and 41 would have been in the area from which the applicant said two insurgents appeared, that is to say, the area directly to the north of the tunnel courtyard. Not only did Person 38 say that he only heard single shots or at most double taps
