When a decorated war veteran was likened to a dog, a seven-year friendship between two men reached a bitter end, a Sydney court heard this week.
One account of the fallout came from private investigator John McLeod, sitting stony-faced in the witness box at the defamation trial of Ben Roberts-Smith.
The Victoria Cross recipient is suing The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times over what he argues were false allegations of unlawful killings, bullying and domestic violence in 2018 articles.
Called as one of publisher Nine Entertainment's witnesses, Mr McLeod's evidence produced a stunning insight into odd jobs he performed for the veteran; from security services, to organising football tickets, to filming Mr Roberts-Smith's ex-girlfriend outside an abortion clinic.
But the Federal Court heard the seemingly mundane task of posting two sealed envelopes would result in him cutting contact.
'Just a touch up'
"No phones" was the instruction repeatedly yelled at Mr McLeod upon arrival at their final meeting in 2018, the former police officer told the judge.
Mr McLeod recalled the veteran asked if he'd seen "the media", following reports an SAS soldier was posted anonymous threatening letters.
"They're not f***ing threats, it was just a touch-up," Mr McLeod claimed Mr Roberts-Smith said.
Mr McLeod said he realised it could relate to envelopes he'd posted around a week earlier, at Mr Roberts-Smith's direction, to an ex-Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) comrade anonymised as Person 18.
He said he encouraged the veteran to own up to any potentially "stupid" acts because "the cover up's ten times worse than the offence".
Instead, Mr Roberts-Smith's suggestion, the court heard, was for Mr McLeod to say he was "a supporter of mine" and sick of the way the veteran was being treated.
Mr McLeod remembered his blunt reply before walking away.
"F*** that, you weak dog."
Last year in the witness box, Mr Roberts-Smith denied instructing Mr McLeod to post the letters. He also denied being the author.
Mr McLeod claimed to have been once tasked with pretending to be a barman to eavesdrop on Mr Roberts-Smith's Channel Seven colleagues attending his Queensland home and report back on their opinions of him.
He denied suggestions from barrister Bruce McClintock SC, under cross-examination, that he was "big-noting" himself after acting as a doorman.
'A wicked lie'
Deep hatred was the feeling Mr McLeod had later formed towards the veteran, Mr McClintock contended, citing messages referring to him as "prick" and "psycho" to Danielle Scott, the best friend of Mr Roberts-Smith's ex-wife.
"I had not," Mr McLeod replied, dismissing the idea that he "would have done anything" to "destroy" Mr Roberts-Smith.
Mr McLeod said he "despised" the media and didn't supply information about the letters to Nine's 60 Minutes for a 2021 program.
He was accused of telling "a wicked lie" by testifying he feared being shot in the head after the airing of the episode, which referred to him as "an associate" of Mr Roberts-Smith.
In messages to Ms Scott, Mr McLeod referenced Channel Seven boss Kerry Stokes, who is financially backing Mr Roberts-Smith's case, questioning whether it would be enough to "wake Kerry".
"What you wanted was for Mr Stokes to withdraw his support of my client," Mr McClintock said.
"How would I do that? No, it's not true," Mr McLeod replied.
Other witnesses provided more glimpses into what they claim was Mr Roberts-Smith's behaviour on deployment and during training.
But like Mr McLeod, they have weathered suggestions, under cross-examination, of ulterior motives.
The mock execution
Surprise was the expression on the face of a soldier after an assault on an imitation Afghan compound during a 2012 training drill in WA, according to an ex-SAS witness known as Person 19.
The court heard that soldier, kneeling and donning Afghan dress to play a detained civilian in the pre-deployment exercise, had just heard Mr Roberts-Smith call for his mock execution.
Person 19 described it as "unusual".
The witness claimed during another exercise, either Mr Roberts-Smith or a colleague also present explained a "throw down" — placing a weapon on a body to create the impression of a death in combat.
The target of accusations again shifted to the witness during cross-examination.
The court heard Person 19 spent more than a month in military jail in 2013 for a serious incident involving ammunition left in his car. The vehicle was stolen and crashed.
Barrister Arthur Moses SC asked if he held the veteran responsible for raising the issue with the unit.
But the witness said he didn't "harbour anger", despite also being dropped from deployment and admitting he was left feeling like "a scapegoat".
His 14-year career ended in dismissal the following year, after he lied on a statutory declaration about his girlfriend living with him.
Person 19 agreed he was "friends" with Chris Masters, one of three journalists also being sued, and admitted relaying "rumours" about Mr Roberts-Smith during meetings with him in 2018 or 2019.
But the barrister's proposition he sought to "dump on" Mr Roberts-Smith was rejected, as was the accusation he attended court to "try and support Mr Masters in his defence of this claim".
'I should smash your face in'
Shock was the reaction recalled by a then-captain in unofficial soldier bar The Fat Ladies Arms in Afghanistan in 2006.
Nearby this witness, codenamed Person 69, was then-lance corporal Ben Roberts-Smith, discussing with colleagues a difficult Chora Valley mission.
Mr Roberts-Smith challenged Person 69 as to why he was there, the court heard.
"I should smash your face in," he claimed Mr Roberts-Smith said.
Mr McClintock put to him that it was "ludicrous" to think a subordinate would speak in such terms; the witness said this was exactly why he remembered it.
Another witness, ex-SAS soldier Person 2, relayed in court a comment he says he overheard from Mr Roberts-Smith in Tarin Kowt: "I just want to kill c***s, I don't give a f***."
While returning from parachute training in WA on a different occasion, he claimed Mr Roberts-Smith leaned over a colleague's bus seat with an iPod displaying pictures of dead insurgents.
"My client did not have an iPod with a screen in 2006, did he?" Mr McClintock asked.
Person 2 denied the evidence was "entirely fabricated".
The trial continues on Monday.
