In a high-stakes defamation case involving a decorated war veteran and allegations of unlawful killings in Afghanistan, another question has recently taken prominence: who shot the dog?
The mystery is linked to an allegation against Ben Roberts-Smith outlined in court documents from Nine Entertainment, the publisher of newspapers he's suing in the Federal Court, which the Victoria Cross recipient denies.
According to those documents, during a 2012 mission in Khaz Oruzgan, Mr Roberts-Smith allegedly directed, via an interpreter, an Afghan soldier codenamed Person 12 to shoot a man who was being questioned or get another soldier to do it.
A suggestion has emerged, in the outlines of proposed evidence from some witnesses, that Person 12 wasn't present on the mission because months earlier he shot a dog and was removed from the team after a ricochet injured an Australian soldier.
It's a suggestion two witnesses have now recanted.
Concessions of an error
Mr Roberts-Smith is suing The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times newspapers over several 2018 stories which contained what he argues were false allegations of unlawful killings, bullying and domestic violence.
Current SAS soldier Person 27, who was this week called as a witness by Mr Roberts-Smith's legal team, admitted it was an "error" to say Person 12 shot the dog, as was included in his outline.
He also conceded it was something about which he had no direct knowledge.
"Who is the first person who used the name of Person 12?" Nine's barrister Nicholas Owens SC asked during cross-examination.
"Ben's lawyers," the witness replied, recalling a June 2019 teleconference from which a written summary of proposed evidence would be sent to him.
He said he was asked if he remembered the incident.
Person 27 told the court he advised the lawyers he was "not sure" about Person 12's involvement and would check with the soldier who was injured, Person 57.
Months later, that soldier told the witness the dog shooter's identity was wrong, however, the information remained in the outline, which Person 27 said he didn't read thoroughly and was "naive" in believing it wasn't final.
Mr Owens said Person 27 was one of five witnesses whose outlines contained the dog incident, but Person 27 said he only recently realised others made the same claim when he read an ABC article listing the witness pseudonyms Mr Owens raised while questioning another soldier last week.
That soldier, Person 35, also initially pointed the finger at Person 12 as the culprit in the dog shooting, however after he was shown classified documents in closed court, he conceded his memory was wrong.
Mr Owens suggested there had been collusion on the part of Mr Roberts-Smith's ex-comrades, which they denied.
No men in the tunnel
Mr Roberts-Smith's fourth witness, codenamed Person 29, is the godfather of one of his children and was a SAS patrol commander during a key mission in April 2009.
Nine alleges that while a Taliban compound dubbed "Whiskey 108" was raided, two insurgents surrendered from a tunnel and were subsequently executed while detained.
It's alleged one man, who had a prosthetic leg, was killed by Mr Roberts-Smith outside the compound, while the other was shot by a soldier codenamed Person 4 at the direction of his superior, Person 5, in Mr Roberts-Smith's presence. The veteran denies both claims.
Person 29 said he found the tunnel while clearing grass from an animal trough in a courtyard.
Asked about sending Person 35 inside to search it, Person 29 became the third of Mr Roberts-Smith's witnesses to say no men emerged — something the veteran has also told the court.
There was, according to Person 29's recollection of Person 35's assessment, "a lot of shit" in there, including chest rigs, documents and ammunition.
Person 29 testified that during the clearance of the tunnel, there was an engagement with insurgents outside the building.
"A call went out over the radio … enemy killed in action," he said.
Mr Roberts-Smith previously told the court two armed men were killed outside, and within the rules of engagement.
Person 29 denied he was falsely claiming to not remember hearing gunfire from engagements which, on his account, occurred on the other side of one of the bombed-out compound's walls to his position.
Person 27, who was also at Whiskey 108, told the court he didn't see the tunnel but recalled "an area where you keep your animals", saying it was "pretty uneventful".
He said he did not see any Afghan men being taken prisoner.
Several previous witnesses for the newspapers have given evidence that a man or men emerged from the tunnel.
More accusations of collusion
Mr Owens showed Person 29 an email Mr Roberts-Smith sent him in 2019, nine days before outlines of evidence were due, which he said demonstrated collusion.
The barrister said attached was a marked-up photograph of Whiskey 108 and suggested a blue box drawn on the image was the area Mr Roberts-Smith intended to give as the location of the two insurgent shootings.
"No, that's not correct," Person 29 said, rejecting the proposition he sought to "align" his evidence with Mr Roberts-Smith's.
Mr Owens suggested as early as November 2018, Person 29 emailed Mr Roberts-Smith about Whiskey 108, prior to the war veteran's interview with the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force as it examined allegations from Afghanistan.
"What I want to put to you is this email represented the beginning of a collaboration between the two of you to agree to the key details of the Whiskey 108 mission," Mr Owens said.
"No, I disagree with that," the witness replied.
Person 29 agreed he was "angry, frustrated, dismayed (and) disappointed" when allegations of war crimes were published about Mr Roberts-Smith in newspapers.
He was also "disappointed" and felt "betrayed" by soldiers speaking to the media, telling the judge "the court of public opinion" wasn't the forum to arbitrate concerns.
'Just give me 10 seconds'
While answering questions from the veteran's barrister Arthur Moses SC, Person 29 gave a detailed account of the 2010 Battle of Tizak; a fierce, extended gunfight with the Taliban for which Mr Roberts-Smith would receive his VC.
As he described being in a helicopter that was hit by enemy fire, brief pauses began to break up his sentences.
For a witness who had articulately answered questions for hours, the change was small but distinct.
Person 29 declined a break but then, mid-sentence stopped himself.
"Your Honour, just give me 10 seconds, just to collect myself," he said, before exhaling amid absolute silence in the courtroom.
While the briefest of moments, it was perhaps a reminder of the emotional cost to witnesses on both sides who are revisiting points in their career when the risk to life was constant.
The case continues on Monday.
