Ben Roberts-Smith insists no Taliban fighters were pulled from a tunnel and executed by his hand – now two SAS soldiers have claimed they witnessed Afghans emerging from the cavern in key but sometimes contradictory evidence in the high profile defamation case.
Mr Roberts-Smith is suing Nine newxjmtzywspapers over a series of articles claiming he killed unarmed and detained Afghans while deployed.
Nine insists the articles are true and have called SAS soldiers to testify against Mr Roberts-Smith’s version of events around a mission in 2009.
The elite fighting force were part of an assault on a compound, in April 2009, known as Whiskey 108 in the south of Afghanistan.
Mr Roberts-Smith told the court he gunned down a Taliban fighter, armed with a rifle, within the laws of engagement outside Whiskey 108.
Nine disagrees – claiming Mr Roberts-Smith executed the fighter, who had a prosthetic leg, after he was pulled from the tunnel and detained.
Nine also claims a second insurgent, pulled from the tunnel, was executed by the SAS “rookie” with the blessing or directly on the orders of Mr Roberts-Smith.
Mr Roberts-Smith denies both those claims and has told the court no one was found in the tunnel under Whiskey 108.
But on Thursday two soldiers disagreed with the Victoria Cross recipient.
The first soldier, known as Person 40, told the court he saw two men crawling out of the tiny crevice after the SAS, with an interpreter, ordered them to come out.
He said it was “absolute nonsense” that no insurgents were found in the tunnel.
Person 40 told the court he watched Mr Roberts-Smith and another soldier “march” the insurgents away as senior SAS watched on.
“They were essentially manhandled… I turned and watched the two insurgents get taken away,” Person 40 said.
One of the insurgents, according to Person 40, had a prosthetic leg.
He told the court he saw that insurgent laying dead as the SAS left Whiskey 108.
Person 40 said he recalled a conversation with other troops about the Afghan’s death.
“I think we did have a conversation about it and how it was wrong what occurred,” Person 40 told the court.
Person 40 told the court he heard, not long after the mission, that Mr Roberts-Smith had “pulled the trigger” and killed the man with the fake leg.
But, he agreed, his “suspicion” was based only on rumours swirling around the regiment.
Mr Roberts-Smith‘s barrister told the court it was “ludicrous” that SAS leaders would have just watched as the insurgents were frogmarched away.
He also told the court there was no interpreter at Whiskey 108 at all.
A second soldier, known as Person 43, was himself a senior member of the SAS, a patrol commander, during the Whiskey 108 raid.
Person 43 told the court he saw another soldier kick over some green hay, unearthing the tunnel.
He told the court he and that SAS soldier trained their weapons and called for an interpreter.
Before the interpreter could arrive, however, a single insurgent crawled out of the tunnel, Person 43 told the court.
Person 43, in painstakingly detailed questioning, said he grabbed the Afghan and pulled him from the tunnel.
The elderly Afghan, in light coloured clothing, was handcuffed and handed over to some other troops, Person 43 said.
He could not recall what happened to the Afghan after that, the court heard.
Nine hope Justice Anthony Besanko will find that the Afghans were located inside the tunnel because, they claim, the men were handcuffed and under control when they were allegedly killed.
Mr Roberts-Smith, on the other hand, insists the only Afghan he killed that day was an armed insurgent, and it was within the rules of war to shoot him dead.
Either way, both sides agree, the prosthetic leg from the Afghan became an infamous drinking vessel in SAS bars.
The trial continues.
