He may also have been very rude to them – and that’s not nice

SLIM pickings today for Nicholas Owens, barrister for Nine Entertainment (LOL). Like his clients, Mr Owens is calling the Taliban “insurgents.” Nobody cares about a woman-slashing, boy raping terrorist being shot, I guess. Has there ever been a standing ovation in a jury box?

Mr Roberts-Smith was then questioned about the use of force with PUCs.

“You could use what force was necessary and required to effect the arrest of the PUC,” the veteran said.

“Would that include punching them?” Mr Owens asked.

“If required, yes,” he said.

This entry was posted in Fake News, War and peace. Bookmark the permalink.

171 Responses to He may also have been very rude to them – and that’s not nice

  1. m0nty says:

    BRS is not covering himself in glory here. Have we even got to the cross examination yet?

  2. BrettW says:

    Interesting to hear, on news just now, that Andrew Hastie will be giving evidence about the “blooding” of a SAS soldier.

    Meanwhile I am suitably outraged that it is acceptable to punch insurgents in order to “arrest” them.

  3. Chromebumper says:

    Is there any other observer of this trial in the entire country who thinks it’s something other than a massive self own for the plaintiff? The jokes on Twitter about whether he would be better off suing himself for defamation are many.

    I hadn’t even paid attention to the original reporting about suspect deaths in Afghanistan, and only vaguely recalled something about an incident involving a woman at Parliament House. Now I know that he got into the most sordid of affairs (married woman with children, plans for abortion, drunken arguments, did-she-fall-or-was-she-punched stuff); has had a possibly unethical relationship with a lawyer; was getting private detectives to try to track down the blokes he thought were dobbing him in; and (today) – the country’s deputy defence minister (in a Coalition government!) is going to give evidence for the defendants.

    Going great!

  4. Muddy says:

    I find the term ‘arrest’ as used in these circumstances odd.

    They’re trying to jump-start the ghosts of Abu Ghraib here, correct?

  5. Dot says:

    Oh no, resisting terrorists captured are punched in the face to stop them resisting or escaping.

    Anyone with half of Monty’s IQ does not give a farque.

  6. Dot says:

    Chromebumper says:
    June 17, 2021 at 6:35 pm
    Is there any other observer of this trial in the entire country who thinks it’s something other than a massive self own for the plaintiff? The jokes on Twitter about whether he would be better off suing himself for defamation are many.

    He has utterly embarrassed Nine and their counsel for two days straight in the box.

    You need to stop smoking crack.

  7. m0nty says:

    Is there any other observer of this trial in the entire country who thinks it’s something other than a massive self own for the plaintiff?

    The Cat is full of fantasists and fabulists. These are people who believe Christian Porter won his case against the ABC. Little connection to reality amongst this lot.

  8. Shy Ted says:

    Person Under Control gets Proper Upper Cut.
    Not sure learned colleague would survive a proper upper cut. On the list.

  9. Rex Anger says:

    He has utterly embarrassed Nine and their counsel for two days straight in the box.

    You need to stop smoking crack.

    Yes and yes.

    This trial defence was specifically set up to become a Brereton War Crimes trial-by-proxy.

    It is the only chance the bugman class will get to slander and slime Australian soldiers for their crimes in participating in a war they decided they did not like, once the carefully-constructed Narrative by Samantha Crompvoets, MAJGEN Brereton, LTGENs Campbell and Burr and the denizens of Russell Offices fell apart under even the most favourable of media spinning.

    Especially when it was effectively admitted that a decade of investigations had found nothing to harden into a single criminal charge, that nobody in either the ADF’s rank-and-file or the general population swallowed the ludicrous claim that the officers commanding SOCOMD’s Task Forces at the time (now the Chief of Defence Force and Chief of Army) were self-absolved of all culpability because Rank Hath Its Privileges, and the incessant leaking and public trumpeting of decade-old events and declarations that the allegations had come exclusively from the accused Troopers themselves meant they were legally entrapped. Multiple violations of legal principle and practice in order to gain the bugmen a PR victory.

    This entire edifice, concentrated onto one man in Benjamin Roberts-Smith VC MG, is presently doing its utmost to collapse without a fight, under the most benign and favourable courtroom environment that it could conceivably experience.

    Had this all been the substance of a criminal trial, it is not inconceivable that a Committal Hearing judge would have flung it back in the Prosecutors’ faces and directed them to never darken his or her courtroom with such frivolities ever again.

  10. candy says:

    I’m not sure that BRS’ relationships with women is relevant to the charge of murder of some Taliban fighters.
    Surely it would have to be based on evidence?

    I think with a person such as BRS in the SAS fighting in Afghanistan against ruthless Taliban is out of the realm of nearly all of us to understand, or have any real glimpse of what that was like to go through day by day, to achieve those goals given to him by the Military. The personality/traits it takes to do that work and how it affects them and so on. One would not want to be quick to judge.

  11. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    The Cat is full of fantasists and fabulists

    This blog owns you lock, stock and barrel.

  12. Chromebumper says:

    So count Dot and Rex in the alternative reality: probably the same one in which an overweight man with piggy eyes who avoided military service and spends 2 hours a day fixing his hair and applying make up is the manliest President since Kennedy.

  13. Dot says:

    So you reckon the noodle muncher and SAS soldier who can’t use a rifle were convincing witnesses?

  14. m0nty says:

    The most convincing witness so far has been the plaintiff, though it is unusual to see a plaintiff appear as character witness against himself.

  15. Rex Anger says:

    So count Dot and Rex in the alternative reality

    Absolutely. A reality in which bugman Narrative is recognised for the mendacious propaganda and slanders which it is.

    probably the same one in which [Insert random smear against Orange Man Bad here because he is all the occupies my diminutive trollish mind…]

    Nice new sock you got there, Grip. Pity if it got prematurely smote…

    #YouLot

  16. Rex Anger says:

    The most convincing witness so far has been the plaintiff, though it is unusual to see a plaintiff appear as character witness against himself.

    Can’t play the ball, so the leftwit goes for the man.

    How typical…

  17. C.L. says:

    BRS is not covering himself in glory here. Have we even got to the cross examination yet?

    Today WAS the cross-examination, Monty, you goofball.

  18. C.L. says:

    Note that Monty is yet again completely uninterested in justice, the law or the hard yards of self-education.

    Pell/Roberts-Smith = bad because alpha non-leftists.

  19. Dot says:

    I couldn’t care if BRS ran as a Green.

    He is being stitched up.

    If you bother to read the Commonwealth Criminal Code, the only way he is guilty of anything is if the “insurgents” were a uniformed, recognised military or he tricked them into surrendering with the intention to kill them.

    Of which there is no evidence of either.

    As for the defamation trial – he rough housed a PUC who was non compliant. He did not like incompetent troopers. He had an affair.

    None of which supports the stories published by Nine Entertainment.

  20. Chromebumper says:

    “Hastie is one of 21 former and serving SAS soldiers expected to give evidence for the defence in the case.”

    Each and every one of them a dupe for the world of “bugman”, hey Rex? Leave your word salad behind and wait for their evidence, eh?

  21. Dot says:

    Giving evidence for the defence is not the same as being in their pocket.

    You’ve never seen (in a criminal trial obviously) a Crown witness shit on the bed and make the prosecutor go ballistic?

    Ah good times.

  22. Rex Anger says:

    Each and every one of them a dupe for the world of “bugman”, hey Rex? Leave your word salad behind and wait for their evidence, eh?

    You first, stooge.

    A fellow who starts his ambit by cheaply slandering and defaming a man he’s never met, on the basis of inevitably biased courtroom reporting and gets slapped down by those with a better understanding of events and cultire that he, a mere troll, will never understand, is in no position to say Let’s see how it pans out…

  23. m0nty says:

    Today WAS the cross-examination, Monty, you goofball.

    What a relief! BRS taking the stand to answer questions from his own lawyers was going so poorly.

  24. Dot says:

    How did it go poorly for him when he pointed out how out of depth the other two troopers were?

  25. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    The lawyer and the soldier: Duelling words and the danger of legal traps
    Harriet Alexander
    By Harriet Alexander
    June 17, 2021 — 6.37pm

    Day one of cross-examination.

    Ben Roberts-Smith, a former SAS soldier, is suing two newspapers owned by Nine and one other, in addition to three journalists, for stories that he claims portrayed him as a murderer, on top of an allegation he punched a woman. His interlocutor, Nicholas Owens, SC, is defending the media outlets. They claim that the allegations are true.

    Both men have rehearsed for this exercise.

    Mr Owens is recognised as being among the most skilled in his field, a gentleman interrogator and expert in the parsing of truth and lies. He is bookish and bespectacled, with grey hair that grows vertically.

    Mr Roberts-Smith, who earned a Victoria Cross on the battlefield, has been trained in resistance to interrogation. He is dressed in a sharp suit and has a straight parting in his hair.

    The hearing is nearing the end of its second week, the point in any trial at which the players are so familiar to one another, so caught in their common endeavour, that the courtroom takes on the atmosphere of a bus tour. Mr Owens and Mr Roberts-Smith have taken each other’s measure.

    And so begins the discourse.

    “Is it correct that, at all times when you were deployed to Afghanistan, you understood that it would never be permissible to kill a PUC [person under control]?” – Yes.

    It can hardly be described as a duel. The questions are posed courteously, the answers are thoughtful. Piece by piece, Mr Owens builds the detail into the version of events that Mr Roberts-Smith has already given. What could he see? Which direction was he moving? How long did that take him? Why did he choose to climb the embankment?

    The underlying question is: wherein lie the traps?

    The only obvious tension arises between the barristers, when Mr Robert-Smith’s counsel, Arthur Moses, SC, complains to the judge that Mr Owens does not understand military operations from the way that he couched one of his questions. (Mr Moses, of course, has appeared in multiple defence cases and is a squadron leader in the Australian Air Force Specialist Reserve.)

    “I’m grateful to my friend,” Mr Owens replies. “I know what I’m doing.”

    As they tread through the evidence, Mr Owens probes who can substantiate Mr Roberts-Smith’s account, what he remembers and what he does not.

    Mr Roberts-Smith is able to draw a picture of how a particular insurgent walked outside a bombed compound, he can remember shooting the enemy and dragging him back behind the wall, and he can remember going out again to retrieve his weapon. But he cannot remember which other operative was with him at the time.

    The media organisations allege that the man shot by Mr Roberts-Smith was not a threat and that he was in custody when Mr Roberts-Smith shot him 10 to 15 times.

    It has been over a decade since the events took place, and Mr Owens anticipates that his cross-examination will go for five days. Between the devilish details, both men will need to stay sharp.

  26. Rex Anger says:

    “Hastie is one of 21 former and serving SAS soldiers expected to give evidence for the defence in the case.”

    I seem to recall, Chromedome, that this number had fallen to around 4 just prior to trial commencement, and several of these allegedly ‘high-profile’ and ‘key’ witnesses had walked clean away from Channel Nine while it was mid wind-up…

  27. C.L. says:

    Corporal Noodles and Private Rusty-Gun will never be heard from again.

    I presume they were both drummed out of the Regiment following their ineptitude and malingering before and during a firefight.

    No wonder they hate Roberts-Smith.
    He went on to win the VC.

  28. Chromebumper says:

    You first, stooge.

    I was commenting on the evidence so far. So far, it’s got “at best, pyrrhic victory” written all over it.

    with a better understanding of events and cultire

    I genuinely don’t know – are you ex military? Defence force contractor? Granddad was in world war 2?

  29. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    I presume they were both drummed out of the Regiment following their ineptitude and malingering before and during a firefight.

    I’ve never served with the Special Air Service Regiment, but that does strike me as the sort of conduct that would get you chucked out. Returned to Unit?

  30. Old Lefty says:

    On the separate but not unrelated Porter case, Jeremy Gans draws attention to a very interesting affidavit in the Porter case file from Sue Peters, who was part of the debating circle at the same time as Porter and Jo Dyer.

    Peters says she was in Porter’s company a lot at the time and never had the slightest concern about his behaviour towards her: on the contrary, ‘he was like the brother I never had’. She found the allegations incredible.

    She also relates that Dyer made a declaration of interest when she told Peters of the late Kate’s allegations: you should know I was an ALP candidate in South Australia. A declaration the ABC and former Fairfax think we plebs need’nt know about.

    Peters can, of course, forget about ever working for the ABC again.

  31. Rex Anger says:

    I was commenting on the evidence so far. So far, it’s got “at best, pyrrhic victory” written all over it.

    Really? That’s an impressive backflip from Is there any other observer of this trial in the entire country who thinks it’s something other than a massive self own for the plaintiff? The jokes on Twitter about whether he would be better off suing himself for defamation are many.

    Especially after admitting I hadn’t even paid attention to the original reporting.

    Troll competently or just stick to driveby bullshit like Ah-ha. He gun’ lose!

  32. m0nty says:

    How did it go poorly for him when he pointed out how out of depth the other two troopers were?

    Did you not hear the bits about how he hired a private dick to perform an invasive probe? Obviously that was the prosecution getting ahead of evidence they were expecting the other side to present.

    This is one of those cases where discovery makes it worse for the plaintiff.

  33. C.L. says:

    Some of the anecdotes that get left behind by the press might leave an impression on a jury.

    Like climbing a mountain or and swimming a river to catch and kill a terrorist while on overwatch for Allied soldiers on operation.

    It seems that after all those years, the SAS got sloppy and had in its ranks a coterie of pretenders who wanted to play commando without risking death or injury. My impression is that Roberts-Smith took his job extremely seriously and the noodlers didn’t like it.

  34. Rex Anger says:

    Did you not hear the bits about how he hired a private dick to perform an invasive probe? Obviously that was the prosecution getting ahead of evidence they were expecting the other side to present.

    Aside from the phrasing issue, where on earth didnyou get the idea this was a criminal trial, m0ntard?

    Civil trials comprise a plaintiff and a defendant.

    If you can’t evem get that right, you really shouldn’t comment at all…

  35. Dot says:

    Did you not hear the bits about how he hired a private dick to perform an invasive probe? Obviously that was the prosecution getting ahead of evidence they were expecting the other side to present.

    1. PLAINTIFF.
    2. Isn’t he suing for being smeared as a murderer? I haven’t seen the statement of claim, have you?

  36. m0nty says:

    Get back to me when you figure out term limits on US presidencies, Sanger.

  37. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    My impression is that Roberts-Smith took his job extremely seriously and the noodlers didn’t like it.

    That’s the word that reaches my ears, indeed.

  38. m0nty says:

    Isn’t he suing for being smeared as a murderer? I haven’t seen the statement of claim, have you?

    I am not sure exactly why he volunteered information about how he had this woman tailed by a PI, but it’s likely because he knew the defendants knew about it so he was attempting to neutralise it as an issue. The cross-examination on this is going to be stressful for him, I suspect.

  39. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    The cross-examination on this is going to be stressful for him, I suspect.

    You are talking about someone who’s training covers “resistance to interrogation?”

  40. Rex Anger says:

    It seems that after all those years, the SAS got sloppy and had in its ranks a coterie of pretenders who wanted to play commando without risking death or injury

    I think this had been alluded to in Mark Donaldson’s The Crossroads.

    Certainly it has also proved a serious issue in Allied SF units also. Chief Eddie Gallagher of the US Navy SEALs was subjected to all manner of legal hell because of similar individuals in his team lying about him to get him court-martialed, because he had ridden them harder in-country than they felt they should be. An uncompromising attitude to professionalism and staying alive in a warzone slimed the accusers and the US Navy’s JAG Corps alike, for their efforts to railroad Chief Gallagher and force a war crimes conviction. Gallagher was Pardoned.

  41. Rex Anger says:

    Get back to me when you figure out term limits on US presidencies, Sanger.

    If that is the best you have, you already lost, fatman.

  42. Muddy says:

    Does anyone know – broadly speaking, as it is unlikely the details are public knowledge – how many personnel are members of the SASR? My uneducated understanding was that the Regiment itself contained several (three?) Sabre Squadrons, plus support services (sigs, medical, etc). It used to be that each Sqn. specialised in a mode of transport (amphibious, air, etc.).

    I ask this as a follow-on to C.L.’s comment “after all those years…” and speculate that the churn prompted by repeated operations due to the political cowardice of not committing, say, a brigade group to Af (sorry, had to get that jab in), may have contributed to a drop in standards?

    None of the above are intended as statements, but rather questions from one interested but completely unqualified individual.

  43. Rex Anger says:

    I ask this as a follow-on to C.L.’s comment “after all those years…” and speculate that the churn prompted by repeated operations due to the political cowardice of not committing, say, a brigade group to Af (sorry, had to get that jab in), may have contributed to a drop in standards?

    I think that reading between the lines of Brereton et al and all its filler information effectively admits as much. While desperately trying to deflect all blame from the senior leadership of SOCOMD, Army and ADF, and keep everybody’s focus on the alleged offending clique of debbil-debbil Senior NCOs and Troopers of 2 Squadron, SASR.

  44. Albatross says:

    invasive probe

    Just the kind of homoerotic confabulation I’ve come to expect from you.

    the prosecution

    Kek. You absolute imbecile.

  45. Rex Anger says:

    SAS Sabre Squadrons are split into Water, Air and Vehicle Mobility Troops, and ought to contain about 90 members each.

    From the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service_Regiment

    My recollections of Army’s internal material for prospective Applicants was that the successful completion of a 3 week Selection course then led into an 18 month Reinforcement Cycle, in which the Applicant soldier or Officer was taught everything they needed to lnow, before being posted to a Squadron.

    SOTG Squadron and Commando Company rotations were 6 months at a time. Regular Army Battalion Groups rotated after 8 months, with the smaller Armoured Corps and Engineer Corps Regiments and their equipment taking a far greater strain than the 7 or Battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment.

    2 SF Regiments trying to maintain that tempo for some 10 years was a massive strain on personnel and logistics alike. And that was without the demands of near constant combat.

  46. Muddy says:

    Thanks, Rex.

    Presumably, when one squadron was o/s on operations, one was on standby, and the other in training. Plus they were responsible for TAG West (or whatever it is titled now), correct?

    That’s a lot of pressure to perform over a prolonged period for what we assume is not a large unit.

  47. Rex Anger says:

    2 SF Regiments trying to maintain that tempo for some 10 years was a massive strain on personnel and logistics alike. And that was without the demands of near constant combat.

    A book on Australian Commando ops in Mosul was published last year, which while it tries to equivocate by talking about Australian Mueslis who went and joined ISIL, paints a very vivid picture of the strains the Commandos suffered from about 2012-2019. While the SASR is not as prominent in the story, it is indicated as being under equal stress, and also demonstrates very clearly the additional suffering inflicted on former and serving SAS Operators and Commandos alike by the gratuitous smears and standover tactics inflicted on them by the Inspector-General of the ADF and its ‘investigators.’

  48. Rex Anger says:

    Presumably, when one squadron was o/s on operations, one was on standby, and the other in training. Plus they were responsible for TAG West (or whatever it is titled now), correct?

    That’s a lot of pressure to perform over a prolonged period for what we assume is not a large unit.

    Precisely.

    And as I said, smaller Corps in the Australian Army providing support to SOTG and Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Forces (RTF/MRTF/MTF- The acronyms changed as the missions shifted)- Armour, Artillery, Engineers, RAEME, Intelligence, Signals etc. all experienced the same issues. Albeot on a smaller scale.

  49. Muddy says:

    Apologies for the paraphrase of your last sentence. I posted before I read.

  50. Rex Anger says:

    Apologies for the paraphrase of your last sentence. I posted before I read.

    ‘Sall good.

    I note the trolls have now all done a Brave Sir Robin

  51. jupes says:

    … he rough housed a PUC who was non compliant.

    Oh dear. Looks like Albert Jacka might be in a bit of trouble if Brereton is given license to broaden his enquiry.

  52. FlyingPigs says:

    Rex Anger says:
    June 17, 2021 at 6:59 pm

    This trial defence was specifically set up to become a Brereton War Crimes trial-by-proxy.

    what Rex is saying.

  53. candy says:

    Andrew Hastie to give evidence against BRS and was very supportive of the Brereton Report and seemed to judge the SAS soldiers guilty before any trial. Perhaps a political thing to have a bet each way, as PM Morrison does.

    Brendan Nelson to give evidence for BRS and has been highly supportive for a long time. Funny how things work out.

  54. 132andBush says:

    totem
    /ˈtəʊtəm/
    Learn to pronounce
    noun
    a natural object or animal that is believed by a particular society to have spiritual significance and that is adopted by it as an emblem.
    a person or thing regarded as being symbolic or representative of a particular quality or concept.

  55. Rex Anger says:

    @ 132andBush-

    Á la George Pell and Christian Porter, you mean?

  56. Rex Anger says:

    (Did I get the flicky accent thing on the right a?)

  57. FlyingPigs says:

    Andrew Hastie has always had a whiff of ‘don’t look at me, it was those beastly blokes over there you have to focus on’.

  58. BrettW says:

    Had a look at RS and Hastie on Wikipedia. Hastie did his trip with SAS in 2013 but looks like RS last trip was 2012 and was back before end of that year. Stand to be corrected but I don’t think they were there at the same time.

    If Hastie is a witness to an actual war crime by RS he has waited 8 years to mention it in public.

  59. FlyingPigs says:

    If Hastie is a witness to an actual war crime by RS he has waited 8 years to mention it in public.

    he’s a witness to the ‘beast’ kultchar.

  60. FlyingPigs says:

    trial by innuendo

  61. ed case says:

    You’ve never seen (in a criminal trial obviously) a Crown witness shit on the bed and make the prosecutor go ballistic?

    Hastie is going to be a Hostile Witness and destroy his political career just to do Roberts-Smith a favor?
    One thing for sure, Labor’s big plans for BRS have hit a brick wall.

  62. Mater says:

    Although the patrol report had identified only a single Afghan unarmed “spotter”, Roberts-Smith later said that two armed insurgents had approached the position in an oral account provided to the Australian War Memorial. When the inconsistency was raised, Roberts-Smith claimed to have remembered incorrectly.

    Right, so in an action which resulted in the awarding of two MGs, we have inconsistency in whether it was one or two bad guys, because…memory problems after more than a decade.

    Yet, some of you blokes are hanging your hats on (and smearing Troopers and Regimental standards based on) recollections of ‘eating noodles’ and ‘didn’t have any oil’ from the same action – recounted a further four years on?

    FMD.

    I know they survive by the 1%ers, but is that all they remember clearly?

  63. Perplexed of Brisbane says:

    I just hope BRS used the insurgent’s correct pronouns or he is done for.

    This looks like our politicians and non-combatant senior ADF officers have looked at the rules of war and decided it is a bit ‘icky’ and want to wipe away the memories, like Lady Macbeth.

    PS. I hope BRS wins big.

  64. Dot says:

    memory problems after more than a decade

    That is completely normal.

  65. Mater says:

    That is completely normal.

    Yes, but you’re missing the point, dot.
    Trival shit like noodles, oil and weapons failing to fire exactly three times would seem to be even less memorable, no?

  66. Mother Lode says:

    “Would that include punching them?” Mr Owens asked.

    “If required, yes,” he said.

    Scandal!

    Meanwhile, in the other ‘-stan’, gangs of armed police officers:

    > Bursting into a home and frogmarching out a distraught pregnant woman in front of her family for typing on Facebook;
    > Closing in like jackals to terrify an old woman catching her breath on a park bench;
    > Setting upon and roughing up a solitary girl for not wearing a mask;
    > And surrounding an anxious mentally ill man, barking orders and advancing on him, making him increasingly agitated, until they can manoeuvre around and knock him down with a car

    All that is just a day in the office.

  67. Penguinite says:

    Mother Lode says:
    June 18, 2021 at 7:16 am

    You beat me to the punch, as the Vicpol Sargent said.
    Vicpol are more brutal and less discerning than SAS it seems.

  68. PeterW says:

    Right, so in an action which resulted in the awarding of two MGs, we have inconsistency in whether it was one or two bad guys, because…memory problems after more than a decade.

    Yet, some of you blokes are hanging your hats on (and smearing Troopers and Regimental standards based on) recollections of ‘eating noodles’ and ‘didn’t have any oil’ from the same action – recounted a further four years on?

    You’re misunderstanding how memory works.

    It is far easier to accurately recall that person X did action Y if the person and the action are unique and under unique circumstances. In a unit placing a high value on competence, an incompetent action by Tpr. Slacker which puts the patrol at risk, will remain in the personal memory because it is associated with one specific person.
    Personal reputation is a large part of the SF culture, due to the nature of their work in small groups and often without external support.

    The reliability of the team members is important. Life-or-death important. Let down your team-mates and it will never be forgotten.

    You are comparing that with the recollection of an interaction with the enemy that has been repeated dozens of times across a spectrum of variation.

    From personal experience – the NSW Fires 18 months ago – I can tell you that some details stick in your mind, and some rapidly go fuzzy. I can tell you exactly where I was and what I thought when the RFS Commissioner walked in ( Seated behind the table in X fire shed, and “Who’s that fat little bastard in the white shirt.?.”) But I’m not certain which date it was, only vaguely aware of the time and could only positively name one other person present at that moment.
    Some things get your attention. Others, not so much.

  69. Primer says:

    Seems RARs weren’t up to combat in AStan and Iraq. That’s concerning.
    SAS and 2 Commando did it all.

  70. Roger says:

    Have we even got to the cross examination yet?

    Incisive commentary there, monty.

    Keep us all informed with updates when we get to the cross-examination, won’t you.

  71. PeterW says:

    Primer says:
    June 18, 2021 at 9:27 am
    Seems RARs weren’t up to combat in AStan and Iraq. That’s concerning.
    SAS and 2 Commando did it all.

    I have some ex-5RAR mates who spent their share of time outside the wire.
    Where did you get that idea?

  72. Primer says:

    Peter, apology, my mistake. Search shows involvement. My error impression via media was that every fight I ever saw video of or heard of involved SASR or 2 Commando alone.

  73. max says:

    Agreed, the bonding within SAS groups is tight but that just works against BRS when so many are supposed to be ready to testify against him.
    He thinks they’re all jealous. Perhaps he was just a loner who didn’t know how to turn the switch to off.
    He didn’t join them when they pulled out the prosthetic leg and passed it round.

  74. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Stunning claims by Afghanistan veteran turned Liberal minister that he saw a soldier looking ‘anxious and uncomfortable’ after Ben Roberts-Smith ‘ordered him to kill an insurgent’

    Australia’s most decorated soldier Ben Roberts-Smith is suing Nine newspapers
    Afghanistan veteran and VC recipient claims he was portrayed as a war criminal
    The 42-year-old stepped into a Federal Court witness box in Sydney last week
    He told the court his ‘heart was broken’ when he was accused of war crimes
    Roberts-Smith could claim millions in damages if he can prove he was defamed
    Court has heard he was a victim of jealous and bitter former comrades-in-arms
    Assistant Defence Minister Andrew Hastie to be a witness for Nine Newspapers

    Daily Mail

  75. PeterW says:

    Primer says:
    June 18, 2021 at 10:36 am……

    No dramas, mate, and yeah, the media has been anything but even-handed. It hasn’t been helped by politicians who want to cover their arses by claim that all of our contributions and risks gave been “special”.

    Don’t get me wrong. Our Infantry is pretty bloody good by any standards, although they don’t have access to equipment and resources at quite the same levels.

  76. C.L. says:

    I might be wrong but my reading between the lines re “blooding” was that B R-S had described or seen a particular outing as having a “blooding” dimension re a patrol member.

    So what?

    I note that the news.com headline describes it as a “blooding mission” now.

    Months ago, it was portrayed as a casual order to kill.

    Now it was a “mission.”

    Roberts-Smith wasn’t in a position to create missions out of thin air. A mission has to be approved at the top of the chain of command. Whether or not he saw it as a “blooding” is of no particular legal or moral relevance. It is old, stock-standard military language.

  77. Rex Anger says:

    I might be wrong but my reading between the lines re “blooding” was that B R-S had described or seen a particular outing as having a “blooding” dimension re a patrol member.

    In which case, the context changes well beyond that which Nine and the bugmen have been using.

    To ‘blood’ in this case, would be to introduce the new Trooper into the Patrol environment on an operation in which combat is expected. The Patrol thus learns what this new fellow is like and how he reacts under the stresses of a firefight, and the Trooper learns what the Patrol does in the field.

    To translate this as getting someone used to killing by killing prisoners becomes a particularly lurid and mendacious misinterpretation…

  78. PeterW says:

    Roberts-Smith wasn’t in a position to create missions out of thin air. A mission has to be approved at the top of the chain of command. Whether or not he saw it as a “blooding” is of no particular legal or moral relevance. It is old, stock-standard military language.

    There is a considerable body of literature on the subject of the reaction of soldiers to their first experience of combat.
    There is a psychological reaction to being in a situation involving people trying to kill you, and your need to kill them, that no amount of training can fully replicate. There is no substitute for that experience – whether it is in understanding you you deal with that personal threat, or understanding the reality that if you are not willing to accept risk and use lethal force, your mates may die.

    The historical term for that experience is “blooding”, and no units has been regarded as completely reliable, without it. LtColonel Dave Grossman has written extensively on the reluctance of most troops to kill other humans.

    This may explain why missions were undertaken against low-priority targets as a form of familiarisation and testing of new unit members. It may also explain why new unit members were ordered to do things that made them “uncomfortable”.
    Either way, the Rules of Engagement in Afghan were nowhere near as clear-cut as many of us like to imagine.

  79. Rex Anger says:

    Snap, PeterW.

  80. PeterW says:

    Rex puts it more clearly than I do.

    Another aspect of it is that all members of a Patrol must be able to trust each other. One of the reasons that the military places such an emphasis on obedience to orders is that you cannot expect every soldier to fully understand the reason why an order is given. In combat, a soldier is expected to trust his superiors unless there is a clear and obvious reason otherwise.

  81. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case: Elite soldiers ‘covered up’ cliff execution, court told

    Kieran Gair
    Journalist
    @KieranGair
    17 minutes ago June 18, 2021

    War hero Ben Roberts-Smith conspired with two special forces soldiers in an effort to “cover up” the murder of a handcuffed man by “inventing” a story about an ambush in an Afghan cornfield, a court has heard.

    Mr Roberts-Smith, 42, is suing The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times, now under separate ownership, over reports published in 2018 that alleged he committed murder during deployments to Afghanistan. He denies the allegations and says the reports portray him as a murderous war criminal.

    On the second day of his cross-examination in the Federal Court by barrister Nicholas Owens, SC, for Nine newspapers, Mr Roberts-Smith was questioned in detail about key events surrounding Nine’s “centrepiece” allegation – the murder of unarmed civilian Ali Jan in Darwan, Uruzgan province, on September 11, 2012.

    As part of its truth defence, the newspapers allege that Mr Roberts-Smith committed or was complicit in six unlawful killings in Afghanistan, including the murder of Jan. They allege the farmer was kicked off a cliff while handcuffed and then shot dead by Australian soldiers in the village of Darwan in 2012.

    Mr Owens suggested the war hero had kicked a PUC – an acronym for persons safely and securely under the control of Australian soldiers – in the chest and “over the cliff” after the man twice laughed at him.

    He told the court that Mr Roberts-Smith proceeded to walk down the cliff with person 11 and that they “both observed” that the man “was very seriously injured around the mouth.” It was at this point, Mr Owens submitted, that the Victoria Cross recipient and two other soldiers agreed to execute the man.

    “You and person 11 dragged him into a cornfield and either you or person 11 shot him,” Mr Owens said. “That’s completely false,” Mr Roberts-Smith replied.

    Mr Owens showed the Victoria Cross recipient a photo of the man’s body with four bullet wounds, an “open gaping wound in his chest”, an injury around the man’s mouth, and injuries “consistent” with being handcuffed.

    Mr Owens asked: “When this man was shot, his arms were handcuffed behind his back, won’t they?” “No, they weren’t,” Mr Roberts-Smith said. “You, person 4 and person 11 all discussed how to cover up the killing, correct?” “That’s false,” Mr Roberts-Smith replied.

  82. Ed Case says:

    He told the court that Mr Roberts-Smith proceeded to walk down the cliff with person 11 and that they “both observed” that the man “was very seriously injured around the mouth.”

    They’re saying that was the result of Roberts-Smith kicking him in the mouth?

  83. Tony Rooney says:

    PeterW says:
    June 18, 2021 at 2:40 pm
    Roberts-Smith wasn’t in a position to create missions out of thin air. A mission has to be approved at the top of the chain of command. Whether or not he saw it as a “blooding” is of no particular legal or moral relevance. It is old, stock-standard military language.

    There is a considerable body of literature on the subject of the reaction of soldiers to their first experience of combat.
    There is a psychological reaction to being in a situation involving people trying to kill you, and your need to kill them, that no amount of training can fully replicate. There is no substitute for that experience – whether it is in understanding you you deal with that personal threat, or understanding the reality that if you are not willing to accept risk and use lethal force, your mates may die.

    The historical term for that experience is “blooding”, and no units has been regarded as completely reliable, without it. LtColonel Dave Grossman has written extensively on the reluctance of most troops to kill other humans.

    This may explain why missions were undertaken against low-priority targets as a form of familiarisation and testing of new unit members. It may also explain why new unit members were ordered to do things that made them “uncomfortable”.
    Either way, the Rules of Engagement in Afghan were nowhere near as clear-cut as many of us like to imagine.

    Yes. This.

    On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, 1996, Dave Grossman Pages 88 and 244.

    Note well that nothing from Grossman’s seminal work is cited in the Brereton/Crompvoets Report.

    Because it didn’t suit the narrative…

  84. Muddy says:

    Thanks, Zulu.

    Do we know the height of this cliff? If the cliff was so integral to the incident, why is a height – even an estimated one – not included? Surely if it was a 30 metre high cliff, it would strengthen the defendant’s case to mention so?

    The Afghan was kicked off a cliff plexi-cuffed, yet his only observable injuries were to the mouth?

    Why drag the bloke into a cornfield prior to shooting him? Were there witnesses that could have observed any events at the bottom of the ‘cliff?’ (Perhaps this is still to be revealed?). If not, would it not have been easier to kill the bloke first and then drag his body into the cornfield? If there were witnesses who had a view of the bottom of the cliff, and there were at least two troopers examining the bloke, apparently seriously injured at this point, could one of the troopers not have pinched a carotid in the guise of examining him, while the other trooper provided a kneeling visual shield? In other words, why draw attention to the incident by using gunfire?

    I don’t have a particular opinion on this, but there are interesting questions to ponder.

  85. C.L. says:

    Mr Roberts-Smith proceeded to walk down the cliff…

    He walked down a cliff?

  86. Chromebumper says:

    I’m here waiting to see Dot and Rex claim that it was another day that went brilliantly for the plaintiff.

    For what it’s worth, in a bit of sincere talking out loud, the culture war analysis that is popular here is (surprise!) wrong headed. Yes, in the Pell case, there was a clear Lefty, art-sy, latte drinking anti-Catholic sentiment that was let loose in a lot of public comment. In the case of soldiers and the defence force, though, it’s just not obvious that there is anything like the same resentful sentiment amongst the same or similar people towards them. Anzac Day gets an extremely respectful treatment on all media, for example, and our involvement in Afghanistan was not a matter causing regular angst on the Left or the young. They just pretty much ignored it, didn’t join the ADF if they didn’t want to be part of it, and it’s been the nouveau isolationist, Trump loving Right – such as here – which has pretty much turned on it first.

    It’s just implausible that this is something being persecuted by the media with culture war motives.

    Sometimes allegation of war crimes are just, you know, allegations of war crimes.

  87. C.L. says:

    I’m here waiting to see Dot and Rex claim that it was another day that went brilliantly for the plaintiff.

    About as well as it went for the respondent when two of its star witnesses proved to be dangerous malingerers who were probably thrown out of the SAS after nearly getting all of their comrades killed.

    What has ANZAC Day got to do with anything?

    The left-wing media hate the SAS.

    Sometimes allegation of war crimes are just, you know, allegations of war crimes.

    So why hasn’t anyone at ADF headquarters been accused, per Nuremberg precedent?

  88. Dot says:

    One does not simply…walk down a cliff!

  89. Chromebumper says:

    CL’s (and Dot and Rex’s) concept of “proof”: whatever BRS says is 100% true and correct and devastating to the defendant’s case. No need to hear from the other SAS members. Award that man $5 million dollars and a public apology, now.

  90. Ed Case says:

    Muddy asks:

    The Afghan was kicked off a cliff plexi-cuffed, yet his only observable injuries were to the mouth?

    No, a very serious injury to the mouth was observed.
    If Roberts-Smith had kicked him in the mouth [Roberts Smith is 6 foot 10 inches tall in his stockinged feet] in a fit of anger, yeah, that injury would be the most visible.
    Did the kick cause his death instantly, or was it the fall?

    Why drag the bloke into a cornfield prior to shooting him?

    Because he was already dead?
    Perhaps there was no cover at the base of the cliff, so the Cover Story wouldn’t hold up.
    Drag him into the cornfield, then riddle him with bullets, Hey, Ambush, heat of battle.

    Were there witnesses that could have observed any events at the bottom of the ‘cliff?’

    Who knows, what I wonder is whether any of the other Troopers asked after the guy had been kicked:
    “What the fuck did you do that for?”

  91. C.L. says:

    Not at all, Chromebumper.
    You don’t think it’s odd that this impartial, fair-minded pursuit of ‘war crimes’ doesn’t involve any officers at all but only the modern poster-boy for the SAS – which also happens to be the outfit wokesters in the media and the ADF hate the most?

  92. Rex Anger says:

    CL’s (and Dot and Rex’s) concept of “proof”: whatever BRS says is 100% true and correct and devastating to the defendant’s case. No need to hear from the other SAS members. Award that man $5 million dollars and a public apology, now.

    What members, Grip?

    Channel Nine proclaimed to have 21 during the pre-trial posturing. I recall that these numbers plummeted to 4 just prior to trial actually commencing. And several of their alleged ‘bombshell’ witnesses just walked clean away.

    Like I said at the very start of this thread, this Brereton trial-by-proxy is taking itself to pieces under the most benign legal environment it could get, short of a Soviet People’s Court at the height of Stalin’s purges.

    All that needs to happen is the plaintiff holds his nerve, whule the defendants and their mendacious cheerleaders like Grip and Grigory continue to beclown themselves…

  93. Tony Rooney says:

    C.L. says:
    June 18, 2021 at 6:05 pm

    The left-wing media hate the SAS.

    Yes indeed they do.

    When, in August 2001 the SAS boarded the MV Tampa, a target was painted on their back.

    Consider that the same sort of watershed moment as Pell refusing communion to the rainbow sash crowd in 1998.

    There are some similarities.

  94. Muddy says:

    Perhaps there was no cover at the base of the cliff, so the Cover Story wouldn’t hold up.
    Drag him into the cornfield, then riddle him with bullets, Hey, Ambush, heat of battle.

    If the alleged murder could not be done at the base of the ‘cliff’ due to witnesses, would those same witnesses not have observed the Afghan being dragged into or towards the cornfield, and then have heard the report of gunfire?

    The allegation is that the bloke was dragged into the cornfield and then shot, correct? If the intention was to murder this bloke due to frustration/anger, why expend extra energy dragging a live body, and then risk being discovered by shooting him? If Roberts-Smith V.C. was acting on impulse, why not kill the bloke now apparently seriously injured in the mouth (again I ask: nowhere else visible? No broken or fractured bones/dislocated joints from the cliff plunge?) at the base of the cliff and THEN drag the body into the cornfield to hide it temporarily in order to exfiltrate?

  95. C.L. says:

    We know that Nine invented at least one ‘witness’:

    A key witness for Nine in its defamation defence against Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith says he has never spoken to the media giant and had no idea they were relying on his evidence.

    Person 4 is a former SAS soldier who Nine alleged in a June 2018 newspaper article was present when Mr Roberts-Smith ordered members of his squad to kill a shepherd named Ali Jan.

    Nine alleged the order came in September 2012 after Mr Roberts-Smith kicked Ali Jan off a cliff. He was then ­allegedly shot…

    Nine originally nominated Person 4 as one of several military witnesses in the case. But on Friday, in a surprise revelation, the Federal Court heard that Nine has yet to speak with Person 4.

    This is despite them filing in May 2019 an outline of evidence — a basic rundown of what the witness is expected to say in court — in which they claimed the ex-soldier would testify that he had been ordered by Mr Roberts-Smith to help murder Ali Jan, who lay injured at the bottom of the cliff.

    Arthur Moses SC, who is the barrister representing Mr Roberts-Smith, told the court on Friday the “extraordinary” revelation was made during recent discussions between his team and Person 4’s lawyers.

    “We were informed rec­ently by Person 4’s lawyers that Person 4 has never ­spoken to the respondents,” Mr Moses said.

    “And the outline of evidence, that was represented as being an outline of evidence that he would give at trial, that in effect he committed a murder at the direction of the applicant, was not the subject of anything he told the respondents’ lawyers or the respondent.

    “So we’re not sure where they got that from, whether it was made up by them, whether they were sold a pup by somebody or whether they received information unlawfully.”

    Nine also received stolen emails and illegal phone taps.

    Good luck.

  96. Tony Rooney says:

    Just a reminder.

    February 2012. Knives have been out for Roberts-Smith from the off.

    Well done George Negus. That’s precisely what a jealous bloke would say.

  97. Chromebumper says:

    I don’t recall any significant Left wing media attack on the SAS for following orders and boarding Tampa. They blamed Howard, of course.

  98. Ed Case says:

    Muddy asks:

    If the alleged murder could not be done at the base of the ‘cliff’ due to witnesses, would those same witnesses not have observed the Afghan being dragged into or towards the cornfield, and then have heard the report of gunfire?

    You’re assuming he was already alive after plunging down the cliff?
    Nope, he was dead.
    How were our heroes going to explain that?
    Light bulb moment!
    Drag the corpse out into the cornfield, riddle it with bullets, then fuck off and write a Report about being
    ambushed.
    Don’t forget to remove the handcuffs!
    According to Soldier 4 and Soldier 11, that’s more or less what happened.

    No witnesses at the base of the cliff, but no cover for an ambush either, that’s the reason for the trip to the cornfield.

  99. max says:

    I recall that these numbers plummeted to 4

    Let’s wait and see.
    One is Hastie who seems pretty clear about the blooding being execution.
    BRS disputes that it was a cliff.
    10m in height so some called it an embankment.
    Not so hard for someone to find a way down an eroded cliff which could be sheer in parts and sloping a few metres away. So kicking him off then scrambling down an adjacent slope quite possible.
    The number of brothers in arms who are/were prepared to take the stand against him (allegedly) is what concerns me. If they felt an injustice was being perpetrated they would just close up and not betray their mate. And if they think he’s innocent they will make that clear on the stand but that doesn’t seem to be how it will unfold.

  100. Muddy says:

    Ed,
    If the Afghan was dead as a result of the cliff fall (broken neck?), there was no need to do anything else. Dragging and shooting unnecessarily complicates matters.

  101. Ed Case says:

    Muddy- the reporting isn’t clear, but reading between the lines seems to me that they’re saying the kick in the mouth killed him.
    Roberts-Smith’s story is that the bloke was killed in an Ambush, isn’t it?
    Dragging his corpse into the cornfield and riddling it with bullets is consistent with an ambush, a dead man at the foot of a cliff with significant wounds to the mouth is going to raise questions.
    No one wants to end up at The Hague!

  102. Tony Rooney says:

    Chromebumper says:
    June 18, 2021 at 6:53 pm
    I don’t recall any significant Left wing media attack on the SAS for following orders and boarding Tampa. They blamed Howard, of course.

    Peter Charles Tinley, George Edward Negus.

    Your recollection is poor.

  103. Ed Case says:

    The process was started by former members of the SAS who insisted that Roberts-Smith had questions to answer.
    It took years for them to force an Inquiry, the ABC, Lefties, weren’t involved.

    The ABC line is Neutral, The Australian cautiously pro Roberts-Smith.
    Just my personal opinion, the Labor Party had him marked for a stellar career, looks doubtful now, but he’s a long way from losing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Channel 9 do a Porter and fold, particularly if their witnesses have a change of heart,

  104. C.L. says:

    One is Hastie who seems pretty clear about the blooding being execution.

    That would make him a LtCol. Markinson of the piece.
    In which case, he would himself have to be charged with a war crime.
    It would also mean he would be ineligible to sit in Parliament.
    Yes?

  105. Dot says:

    A key witness for Nine in its defamation defence against Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith says he has never spoken to the media giant and had no idea they were relying on his evidence.

    Good god I hope the judge starts kicking arse.

    Channel Nine and their employees are criminals.

    Nine also received stolen emails and illegal phone taps.

    LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP!

  106. Rex Anger says:

    The process was started by former members of the SAS who insisted that Roberts-Smith had questions to answer.
    It took years for them to force an Inquiry, the ABC, Lefties, weren’t involved.

    Interesting- Grigory thinks that Brereton et al was generated by the Troopers themselves.

    Have you told Sammie Crompvoets and LTGEN Burr about this revelation, Grigory? I am sure they’d love you running cover for them…

  107. C’L;

    It seems that after all those years, the SAS got sloppy and had in its ranks a coterie of pretenders who wanted to play commando without risking death or injury. My impression is that Roberts-Smith took his job extremely seriously and the noodlers didn’t like it.

    Certainly it looks like it’s a stitch up of B R-S, and that’s becoming increasingly evident.
    My question is :
    How on earth did these two dropkicks make it through selection?
    Should we be looking at the selection process as well?
    There seems to be a lot of rotten eggs in the Officer Ranks of our defence forces.

  108. Ed Case says:

    Here’s what happens when Murders are committed by Australian Soldiers against native civilians:
    There’s payback, because Afghanistan is a Tribal Society.
    Some vicious thug murders someone’s Uncle/Dad/Cousin/Whatever, some Aussie soldier at the Base [who only joined to learn a Trade/do 20 years/get Pension] gets murdered by a supposedly “friendly” Afghan.
    Was that the issue for the SAS men who called for the Investigation.

  109. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    How on earth did these two dropkicks make it through selection?
    Should we be looking at the selection process as well?

    I don’t have a reference, but IIRC, B.R.S. is on record as saying selection isn’t infallible.

  110. candy says:

    Good point C.L. makes.

    Why did Andrew Hastie go quiet about this “blooding” procedure for so many years if it is true, and only raise it I think just last year.

    All those years and he never raised an inquiry?

  111. Ed Case says:

    Roberts-Smith didn’t give him much choice once he launched Defamation..
    So far, he’s dumped on 2 of his fellow Troopers, the Selection Committe, how many will he take down?
    Hastie is the only former SAS guy with a big public profile [apart from Roberts-Smith], so he’s either got to cop a pounding from Roberts-Smith or take a step forward..

  112. Suggest a read of Tom Lewis’s book “Lethality in Combat.”
    Available on Kindle.

  113. 132andBush says:

    Interesting- Grigory thinks that Brereton et al was generated by the Troopers themselves.

    Well, basically, yes. One way or the other the info has come from other members.

    But that might interfere with the narrative around here that BRS and a few “hard chargers” were carrying Capt Mainwaring and the lads from Walmington-on-Sea around on their backs while trudging around, along and over the Hindu Kush.

  114. max says:

    All those years and he never raised an inquiry?

    Let’s wait to hear the explanation. He may have one.

    Perhaps the recruitment and selection process was at fault with the two young blokes.
    But a much more serious failing in the selection process would be allowing through a rogue and bully who commits a murder and covers it up. If Hastie had suspicions but no evidence only scuttlebut what could he do ? If stories like this are circulating and the person at the centre of it all remains untouched what do you think that does for the reputation of the SAS ?

  115. candy says:

    max,
    He’s testifying about “blooding” as a fact, that it happened.

    If he knew it then back all those years, why now come out with it, if he knew it to be fact then? surely that it is a coverup of a crime itself, as C.L. says.

    He has just popped out of the woodwork with it after all these years.

  116. Ed Case says:

    Someone posted an article from either the ABC or The Australian that Hastie witnessed Roberts-Smith order a young soldier to shoot a captured bloke in Afghanistan.
    Roberts-Smith has brought it on himself by launching Defamation if that happened.
    All Hastie could’ve done by coming forward earlier is destroy that young soldier’s career.
    By launching Defamation instead of just laughing Channel 9 off, Roberts-Smith has called for Raffertys Rules.

  117. candy says:

    Someone posted an article from either the ABC or The Australian that Hastie witnessed Roberts-Smith order a young soldier to shoot a captured bloke in Afghanistan.

    Hastie covered up a war crime, it seems.

  118. max says:

    Candy, he can argue his case but my understanding would be that blooding covers a range of things. Hastie says he saw P:erson 66 just afterwards and he seemed rattled and shaken up pretty badly. Hastie then commented that the first experience of combat can affect people in unexpected ways. Make of that what you will but my reading of it is that Hastie only caught up with the execution story later and put two and two together. He may have spoken to Person 66 and received confirmation of the execution and that it was euphemised as a blooding.

  119. Chromebumper says:

    I don’t see the point of all this speculation about stuff that is almost certainly soon to be clarified in court evidence anyway.

    But I will speculate, or predict, with a high degree of confidence, that CL will eventually turn on BRS because of his encouraging his gf to get an abortion.

    Watch this space.

  120. C.L. says:

    Sorry, Max and Ed, no. You are now running an absurd apologia.
    There is no excuse for covering up a murder. There is no “that young soldier’s career” defence.
    If Hastie did so, he is – by definition – a war criminal and should be charged.

    But that might interfere with the narrative around here that BRS and a few “hard chargers” were carrying Capt Mainwaring and the lads from Walmington-on-Sea around on their backs while trudging around, along and over the Hindu Kush.

    Very funny but it doesn’t alter the fact that Persons 1 & 2 were destroyed as credible witnesses. They were clearly dangerous malingerers and there was zero push-back from the respondent about Roberts-Smith’s testimony regarding their ineptitude.

    I don’t consider myself to have a ‘narrative’ about R-S.

  121. candy says:

    max, I don’t think it is up to Hastie to “put two and two together” in this very serious matter – because he could well be wrong.
    But the fact that he is testifying against BRS means he believes he is right and therefore covered up a crime after “putting two and two together” for some years; at the least never mentioned his suspicions until last year, many years after the event. Why did he wait so long?

  122. C.L. says:

    I don’t have any close interest in Roberts-Smith qua man, Chromebumper.
    He’s not particularly my sort of people.
    You seem to be personally irked by him for some reason.

  123. Ed Case says:

    They were clearly dangerous malingerers

    According to Roberts-Smith.

    … and there was zero push-back from the respondent about Roberts-Smith’s testimony regarding their ineptitude.

    Let’s see if Nine calls them to give their version of events?

  124. PeterW says:

    It needs saying again…..

    Blooding, in the military parlance, does not necessarily mean what sensationalist journalists and your own facile imaginations have told you it means.

    Nor does Selection. The Cadre Course is only an initial part of a lengthy process. It is designed to weed out quickly and efficiently those who are obviously unsuitable, but it is nowhere near a complete examination of all applicable characteristics.

    Nor is the Regiment run by NCOs.
    They are more important and granted greater discretion than in most branches of the military, due to the emphasis on small-unit tactics. Officers are in command and are responsible for the actions of their men. That a significant level of illegal behaviour could exist and not be known by someone higher up the chain is hardly credible… and the lack of accountability seen so-far does not pass the smell-test.

    It really does look as if BRS and other Rank and File are being hung out to dry.

    By all means be skeptical. Just be skeptical in both directions.

  125. Ed Case says:

    It really does look as if BRS and other Rank and File are being hung out to dry.

    It is the Rank and File who campaigned for years to get an Inquiry into events during Roberts-Smith’s time in the SAS.
    Presumably, it was the Officer Class and higher who recommended him for the Victoria Cross and other decorations, so they’re hardly going to burn him.

  126. 132andBush says:

    They were clearly dangerous malingerers

    Dangerous malingerers don’t become SAS troopers.

  127. max says:

    Why did he wait so long?

    We may find out, candy. Loyalty misplaced to a comrade-in-arms ? He wouldn’t be the first undone in such a way.
    I’ll be interested to hear if he did try to take it up the chain but the crimson ribbon on BRS’s chest bedazzled all so that it became unthinkable.

  128. C.L. says:

    Dangerous malingerers don’t become SAS troopers.

    But murderers do?

  129. PeterW says:

    Hastie is a witness to what he saw and heard.
    Hearsay is not evidence.

    Keep that in mind.

  130. C.L. says:

    It is the Rank and File who campaigned for years to get an Inquiry into events during Roberts-Smith’s time in the SAS.

    Can we have some documentary illustrations of this, Ed?

  131. Ed Case says:

    It’s been covered in The Australian, C.L.
    One of the ex SAS men has since died.
    It wasn’t just one or 2 blokes disgruntled over Roberts-Smith getting a Medal, which is what Roberts-Smith has claimed in Court.

  132. PeterW says:

    Presumably…..

    That’s silly.
    Beg pardon, but it is.
    The recommendation for awards for valour are based on the collection and assessment of evidence from eye-witnesses. It is not decided by the Officers in his Regiment. It is of no professional discredit to those who made the award if RS is subsequently found to have done less laudable things.

    It is deeply discreditable – at a career-ending level – if the Officers in the Chain of Command have permitted such a great lapse of discipline and professionalism , that behaviour that is not just illegal, but contrary to the interests of Australian Forces in Theatre… is occurring multiple times and being covered up.

    This does not arise in a vacuum. Responsibility is part of what you take on as an officer.

  133. 132andBush says:

    C.L. says:
    June 18, 2021 at 9:40 pm

    Dangerous malingerers don’t become SAS troopers.

    But murderers do?

    That is a false equivalence.

  134. Ed Case says:

    But murderers do? [become SAS troopers.]

    The DSM-IV reclassified Psychopathy from an incurable Mental Illness to a Lifestyle Choice in 1994.
    So yeah, so long as they can pass the other testing, the Psych Testing to get into the SAS is a piece of piss for murderers because a person can’t be discriminated against for their Lifestyle Choices.

  135. PeterW says:

    It is the Rank and File who campaigned for years to get an Inquiry into events….

    It is my impression that muck-racking journalists went trolling for stories… It is more likely.

  136. 132andBush says:

    It is my impression that muck-racking journalists went trolling for stories… It is more likely.

    Think again.

  137. max says:

    Does this not make you wonder:
    Turning up urgent and overwrought to importune the GG at night and fobbed off.
    Hiring a private detective to trail his mistress as she procures the abortion he wants.
    Friendly chit chat on the phone to her husband.
    Apparently hated by many who served with him.
    Says they’re all just jealous.

  138. Tony Rooney says:

    max says:
    June 18, 2021 at 10:12 pm
    Does this not make you wonder:
    Turning up urgent and overwrought to importune the GG at night and fobbed off.
    Hiring a private detective to trail his mistress as she procures the abortion he wants.
    Friendly chit chat on the phone to her husband.
    Apparently hated by many who served with him.
    Says they’re all just jealous.

    Again it’s been 10 years in the making.

    Refer back to George Negus low rent ‘Beauty and the beast’ gig in 2012.

    Hardly had the ink set on BRS various tattoos, before:

    a) The SMH was immediately into him. Refer to previous apology here.

    b) The Sergeants Mess was into Corporal Roberts Smith, from the off. Refer to Keith Payne’s experience also…

    Jealousy much?

    BRS is literally the tallest, tall poppy.

    There’s a queue a mile long that wants to see him lopped. That’s always been a national trait. Because jealousy. Always has been.

    We pretend that we are the nation of a fair go.

    But we really are not.

  139. Dot says:

    max says:
    June 18, 2021 at 10:12 pm
    Does this not make you wonder:
    Turning up urgent and overwrought to importune the GG at night and fobbed off.
    Hiring a private detective to trail his mistress as she procures the abortion he wants.
    Friendly chit chat on the phone to her husband.
    Apparently hated by many who served with him.
    Says they’re all just jealous.

    If that makes someone a murderer, oh god.

    …also, usually fake witnesses are not usually needed for an actual murder prosecution.

  140. C.L. says:

    Yes, not many people are aware of it now but Keith Payne VC attracted vicious jealousy and hostility from other soldiers and, for a good while, was not popular. He has spoken of being a piss head and wandering along a beach in Mackay, fed up with everything. His wife had also had enough at that point.

    Were all of this to have happened in the 2010s, we would have the video of the beach-wandering, the phone taps of alcohol-fuelled low points etc.

    With Pell, it was hiding in Rome, having a drink at a cafe, being visited by Tony Abbott, bla bla bla. All irrelevant bullshit.

  141. max says:

    Keith Payne’s story has no bearing here. Nor does Cardinal Pell’s. Stop it with the distractions.
    Hinting that Andrew Hastie is not an eligibly elected MP because war criminal is probably not a good idea and could be expensive. It’s also another distraction.

    Stick to the point. We’re discussing a man who says he’s the victim of jealousy but look at his known conduct. Badgering, obsessive, controlling, driven, intimidating, verging on paranoid – yeah they’re all jealous of me. As I said earlier, it’s the number of people lining up to have their say that should give pause. You don’t seem to like Hastie, CL, but he’s a credible person whose concern seems to be the reputation of the SAS, as it should. You can’t just dismiss him as jealous.

  142. Dot says:

    Hinting that Andrew Hastie is not an eligibly elected MP because war criminal is probably not a good idea and could be expensive. It’s also another distraction.

    It is the only logical way what CH. 9 say happened could have happened. Hastie cannot give evidence that proves BRS wrong without incriminating himself.* ** Nor is pointing this out precisely defamatory.

    *If the offence doesn’t exist, then Ch 9 have defamed BRS.

    They also fabricated another witness and another had no idea he was a witness for them.

    As I said earlier, it’s the number of people lining up to have their say that should give pause.

    They’re not though. That should give you pause. Their witness list is a fabrication and has shrunk significantly.

    We’re discussing a man who says he’s the victim of jealousy but look at his known conduct.

    The idea that he was not a saint out of uniform doesn’t preclude others from slandering him.

    Channel 9 fabricated a witness and illegally acquired phone intercepts. Why are you not questioning their integrity? These are serious justice offences.

    Remember the American observer in the Brereton report? He heard something as the small groups he was with was being evacuated by helicopter and presumed it was Australians killing civilians IIRC.

    The lack of any prosecutions after five years of investigation, hundreds of interviews and a long PR campaign should give you a hint.

    I presumed
    I have to incriminate myself
    I am not actually a witness
    I did know I was a witness
    I am a fabrication
    I am a terrible soldier, let alone a trooper

    ** Then as to actual war crimes, irregular forces not of a recognised military not wearing a uniform are essentially outlaws. Read the Criminal Code Act. Even if a PUC was killed – despite the defence putting it to BRS that any killing of a PUC is always illegal; it is not always illegal. If you don’t like it, read the relevant legislation. It requires specific circumstances for the offence to be established. None of which is being posited by the defence counsel.

  143. Ed Case says:

    It is the only logical way what CH. 9 say happened could have happened. Hastie cannot give evidence that proves BRS wrong without incriminating himself.* **

    The Daily Mail article seems to imply that Andrew Hastie witnessed Roberts-Smith order a Trooper to shoot an Afghan in custody.

    Stunning claims by Afghanistan veteran turned Liberal minister that he saw a soldier looking ‘anxious and uncomfortable’ after Ben Roberts-Smith ‘ordered him to kill an insurgent’

    I’d say the key word here is “after”.
    The Press putting their thumb on the scale and obfuscating the truth?
    That’s about all they’re good for.

  144. Dot says:

    Let me be more specific for those who bothered to read the Geneva Convention. Article III covers even insurgents under the convention; but if you read the Criminal Code it specifies the circumstances of how it is applied. In a way, our law has partly repudiated the Article. The Geneva convention is written in a very unsophisticated manner. To be blunt, Article III looks like it was not drafted by a lawyer. Not at least an Australian lawyer. (Or maybe it was).

    If there is a partial justification of a killing then it isn’t murder and our laws conflict with the convention. If it isn’t murder then no Australian law has been broken. Ditto if only manslaughter and not murder could be proven. I am noting only the fault, physical elements or necessity; the code states that war crimes are strict liability offences.

    Which then in turn with the questions regarding physical force are very interesting considering how Article III is worded.

    If hypothetically, a “prisoner of war” was killed, under what circumstances? “If they resist, kill them?”

    So why bring up the physical nature of the capture and continuing detainment of prisoners?

  145. max says:

    Dot:

    If that makes someone a murderer, oh god.

    He encouraged the murder of his own baby.
    Why wouldn’t he order the murder of an insignificant, nameless prisoner ?

    Just look at the out-of-control clusterf*ck he made of his life.
    Rooting another man’s wife.
    She says she is pregnant.
    He wants an abortion.
    She goes alone to get it and he snoops on her.
    His marriage collapses with accusations of domestic abuse.

    He lived in a moral pigsty, so yeah, I’d say he wouldn’t hesitate to rid himself of an uppity. sneering POW.

  146. Dot says:

    The only moral pigsty we can be sure of is Channel Nine.

    Thirty “likely” witnesses.

    Hastie’s testimony so far will be “I saw someone who was nervous”.

    Channel Nine’s version of events are bizzare.

    Each crime they have accused BRS of includes conspirators including Hastie.

    It is a shame that your personal dislike of abortion has clouded your judgement so far as to absolve CH 9 of any culpability in their lies, justice offences and bizarre narrative that involves probably ten other self incriminating witnesses – none of which have turned up to court yet.

  147. max says:

    Hastie cannot give evidence that proves BRS wrong without incriminating himself.* ** Nor is pointing this out precisely defamatory.

    That’s not what was precisely pointed out at all. Candy, following on from CL, accepted and ran with the idea that as a war criminal, Hastie could not remain in parliament. CL’s words encouraged another commenter here to take for granted the notion that Hastie is a war criminal.

    Neither of us knows what Hastie will say, Dot, but I can envisage a scenario in which he testifies without incriminating himself. Let’s wait and see.

  148. max says:

    I’m not able to comment on the Ch 9 stitch up but am happy to take your word on it.

  149. Ed Case says:

    …and bizarre narrative that involves probably ten other self incriminating witnesses –

    Circular reasoning- the witnesses were present at a Murder, therefore they’re Criminals whose word can’t be trusted.
    You’re trying to have your Cake and eat it too.

  150. C.L. says:

    Keith Payne’s story has no bearing here. Nor does Cardinal Pell’s. Stop it with the distractions.

    I didn’t bring up Keith Payne. Somebody else did.

    I’m just pointing out that were culture avengers like you around in the late 1960s, you would have been keen to bring him down.

    CL’s words encouraged another commenter here to take for granted the notion that Hastie is a war criminal.

    If somebody was present at a murder and kept it covered up all these years, that person – ipso facto – is a war criminal and would have to be charged.

    Even though Pell was acquitted, Daniel Andrews and the entire Australian left continued to argue he was a criminal because “he knew” about abuse.

  151. C.L. says:

    Badgering, obsessive, controlling, driven, intimidating, verging on paranoid…

    An intimidating commando, you say.

    Arrest him immediately! LOL.

    Sounds like Kevin Rudd or Malcolm Turnbull.

    Hinting that Andrew Hastie is not an eligibly elected MP because war criminal is probably not a good idea and could be expensive. It’s also another distraction.

    Nobody has said he IS a war criminal. Anybody who is present at a murder and keeps it secret from police for a decade has committed a grave criminal offence.

  152. Ed Case says:

    Mr Morrison and Senator Reynolds did not rule out disbanding the SAS, but senior Defence officials, including the recent head of special forces, Major General Adam Findlay, have signalled strongly that this will not occur. The rationale for reforming rather than disbanding the SAS lies partly in the fact that it was SAS whistleblowers, including multiple Afghan-war veterans, who exposed the wrongdoing to the Inspector-General.

    [my bolding]
    From The Age, Nov 13 2020.
    https://www.theage.com.au/national/ten-sas-soldiers-under-investigation-by-war-crimes-investigators-over-12-afghan-deaths-20201112-p56e4a.html

  153. Ed Case says:

    More from the above link [my bolding]:

    Mr Roberts-Smith’s statement also sought to dismiss Justice Brereton’s inquiry as founded in “rumours”, despite the senior judge conducting more than 350 interviews on oath and examining thousands of classified documents. He welcomed the announcement by Mr Morrison and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, saying it was “heartening” that the matters would be examined by a special investigator’s office.

    Defence sources said most of the alleged war crimes probed by Justice Brereton involved the Perth-based SAS – most notably a small number of soldiers from the 2nd and 3rd squadrons – and not the Sydney-based commandos. One former SAS source said most of the small number of culprits had passed through the elite water operators section of the regiment, which specialises in maritime combat insertion.

  154. Mater says:

    If somebody was present at a murder and kept it covered up all these years, that person – ipso facto – is a war criminal and would have to be charged.

    And if a person (such as Hastie) did immediately raise it, but it was addressed slowly through the established system (as it appears to have been), what were they to do?

    Take such allegations to the Press and have a trial by media to speed things up? I thought we despised that here?

    Get tied up in a VERY expensive defamation lawsuit against a high profile individual who, because of his VC, would attract the undying and unquestioning support of ‘groupies’ and get defamed as an unprofessional slacker and malingerer?

    Perhaps take it to the Press then cover yourself in petrol and light yourself up to avoid the second half of that equation?

    No, many honourable men have clearly done the right thing by confining their concerns and knowledge to the chain of command, and letting the internal process work the way it is supposed to. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Perhaps we here should do the same, and not pre-judge (one way or another) either BRS or the witnesses.

    PeterW says:
    June 18, 2021 at 9:22 am

    You’re misunderstanding how memory works.

    It is far easier to accurately recall that person X did action Y if the person and the action are unique and under unique circumstances. In a unit placing a high value on competence, an incompetent action by Tpr. Slacker which puts the patrol at risk, will remain in the personal memory because it is associated with one specific person.

    Thanks, but as a former Patrol Commander in Afghanistan, I have NO misunderstanding of how memory works in these situations. I remember lots of little trivialities about those who served with me. However, the sight picture of the adolescent who walked onto (and discovered) my OP is ingrained forever in my mind. The crosshairs tracking him from the moment we observed him, hundreds of metres away, right through to when he walked past us, and fatefully turned around and looked back at me. I remember everything about him. The easiest of these details was the fact that he was alone, and not in a pair. Funnily enough, some of the people caught up in this fracas were with me that day.

    This page is full of speculation, mainly of people who have enough of an idea about the circumstances (and the SAS) to make them dangerous, but not necessarily informed. It smells a lot like an inverted version of the masses who judged Pell guilty based on nothing but ‘feelz’ and confirmation bias, many who had never even entered a Cathedral. Books about the SAS don’t cut it.

    First it was the SAS verses the evil forces wanting to undermine it. When it appeared that some of the allegations were coming from within, it became BRS (and a small group of other competent operators) versus the lazy, useless, jealous, cowardly malingerers. It was originally this report which was to destroy the operational capability of the SAS, but now, according to this thread, it was full of incompetence and laziness at lest back to 2006.

    Ask yourself this: if this is all about jealousy and tall poppies, who is representing Mark Donaldson in HIS defamation action?

  155. candy says:

    Max
    I don’t think Hastie would incriminate himself. He’s going to be fully advised by a lawyer, surely. He seems to believe murders were committed as part of “blooding” but he is not 100% sure or if it was by BRS but he has a strong hunch it was.

    One would think if he felt strongly about a “bad” culture in parts of the SAS he would have raised the issue many years earlier and indeed entering a Parliamentary career he could achieve something. But seemingly silence?

    Because he is a firm supporter and friend of the PM and people see him as a future PM, his presence as a witness against BRS is significant. That’s how things roll.
    Is there some malice there on his behalf though. He has no evidence.

  156. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Mater, a question if I may. What disciplinary action would, say, someone more interested in his noodles, or who didn’t carry lubricating oil for his weapon face?

  157. Mater says:

    Mater, a question if I may. What disciplinary action would, say, someone more interested in his noodles, or who didn’t carry lubricating oil for his weapon face?

    You mean Operators who supposedly had no interest in self-preservation…allegedly?
    I could scratch up foibles about nearly every operator I ever served with, some you would even know and admire from books. If these events happened as described, they’re still largely irrelevant.

    Have we heard from witnesses “noodles” and “oil” yet, to get their side of the story?

  158. Ed Case says:

    Because he is a firm supporter and friend of the PM and people see him as a future PM, his presence as a witness against BRS is significant.

    What’s the significance?
    Are you suggesting that Roberts-Smith is an undeclared ALP man and the Liberals in Canberra are out to get him over that allegiance?

  159. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Have we heard from witnesses “noodles” and “oil” yet, to get their side of the story?

    Point taken, Mater – I did wonder whether a couple of individuals, who had received a boot up the clacker, were getting their own back.

  160. Dot says:

    No, many honourable men have clearly done the right thing by confining their concerns and knowledge to the chain of command, and letting the internal process work the way it is supposed to. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Perhaps we here should do the same, and not pre-judge (one way or another) either BRS or the witnesses.

    I agree but CH 9 are pulling some real shit here with witness lists.

    10+ years for the chain of command and 5+ years for the Brereton report – and nothing?

    At what point do you get disciplined for inaction or does Brereton there are no grounds for any charges?

    The RC into Institutional Child Abuse has a massive volume of work and wrapped things up.

  161. Dot says:

    Brereton says

    had a massive volume

  162. candy says:

    What’s the significance?
    Are you suggesting that Roberts-Smith is an undeclared ALP man and the Liberals in Canberra are out to get him over that allegiance?

    Not at all. But Hastie is well known and highly thought of and his presence to the case against BRS adds substance. It just does.

    I am just wondering about Hastie’s true knowledge and motives. If he has no evidence, he never saw anything untoward, why he is contributing to a case where BRS is being framed as a murderer, in essence BRS can end up in jail.

  163. Ed Case says:

    You can’t know why a witness isn’t called.
    Perhaps Roberts-Smith’s side isn’t challenging the particular Witnesses’ Affidavit, perhaps their evidence is no longer relevant, could be any number of reasons.
    There’s no Obligation to call all Witnesses, though Roberts-Smith’s side could call those
    Channel 9 witnesses if it chose to.

  164. Dot says:

    There’s no Obligation to call all Witnesses,

    There’s no obligation to contest a statement of claim.

  165. Ed Case says:

    I am just wondering about Hastie’s true knowledge and motives. If he has no evidence, he never saw anything untoward, why he is contributing to a case where BRS is being framed as a murderer, in essence BRS can end up in jail.

    He’s not being “Framed”.
    Roberts-Smith has launched a Defamation Action in the Courts.
    It might go well, it might fail, but whatever the outcome, he’s not going to jail.

  166. Arky says:

    I have NO misunderstanding of how memory works in these situations.

    ..
    All due respect, but your brain doesn’t work the same as most people Mater.
    Otherwise good comment, I think.
    It’s been a bit bizarre watching people go from “All this is just being done to undermine the SAS” to “These SAS guys are malingerers and liars”.
    Just because the reportage on something is coming from our progressive media whores doesn’t necessarily means it’s all a leftist conspiracy in origin.
    Wait for the outcome before going off half cocked.

  167. Chromebumper says:

    Hard not to be persuaded by Mater’s take on matters, given he’s the one with first hand experience, compared to the fever swamp of imagination here running along pre-conceived culture war-ish lines, and (most often) with the person speculating never having been within coo-ee of any form of military service.

    CL’s denial last night that he has no particular interest in defending BRS as a man is especially laughable – if it were true, he would not immediately and unquestioningly accept his claims about 2 other soldiers and promote it as the obvious and true explanation for the whole affair.

    My original point in the thread still stands – whatever comes out of the Afghanistan allegations, by bringing an action that included aspects of his personal life, he’s had to air a lot of dirty laundry which the public was not previously aware of. And it hasn’t painted him in a good light. Pyrrhic victories (assuming he has some win on one or more allegations) of this type are not uncommon in defamation cases, surely; but the fan boys (and girl) here are upset at the very suggestion.

  168. C.L. says:

    Now that this post has gone over the digital waterfall, I’ll leave off.

    Ed and others have made a case with some lessons worth heeding (and made some baseless conjectures of their own).

    Am always happy to learn and be challenged.

    Ultimately, Roberts-Smith was awarded the VC – which means his file was snow-white when it was conferred. That medal is simply not given out to anyone without approval at the highest possible level. It’s reasonable to argue that these ‘witnesses’ couldn’t have cared less about the recipient’s behaviour until he became a living legend and a big man on the national campus. That is troubling because it calls into question their own motives – and their adherence to the laws they now say he broke (if that is indeed what they say in their testimony).

  169. C.L. says:

    CL’s denial last night that he has no particular interest in defending BRS as a man is especially laughable – if it were true, he would not immediately and unquestioningly accept his claims about 2 other soldiers and promote it as the obvious and true explanation for the whole affair.

    I can just as easily say that your pretense of being a non-partisan observer of the trial is especially laughable because you immediately and unquestioningly accept the claims of two anonymous witnesses and promote them as the obvious and true explanation for the whole affair.

    I’m not a ‘fan’ of Roberts-Smith. But you obviously hate him.

    …the person speculating never having been within coo-ee of any form of military service.

    Nor has Nine’s barrister ever been within cooee of military service. Or the judge. Or the journalists involved.

    Trival shit like noodles, oil and weapons failing to fire exactly three times would seem to be even less memorable, no?

    It’s “trivial” to have an un-oiled and non-functioning weapon in a firefight?

    Bullshit.

    And if a person (such as Hastie) did immediately raise it, but it was addressed slowly through the established system (as it appears to have been), what were they to do?

    Go to the police like everyone else.

  170. PeterW says:

    Thanks, but as a former Patrol Commander in Afghanistan, I have NO misunderstanding of how memory works in these situations. I remember lots of little trivialities about those who served with me. However, the sight picture of the adolescent who walked onto (and discovered) my OP is ingrained forever in my mind.

    That was not the point that I was making.

    I may not have expressed myself clearly enough, so I will try again.
    Specific visual details of events are frequently far more easily remembered than related information. The mechanism by which we recall things that are not included in that visual memory is different . Associated information is not “seen” the same way that we recall that visual detail.

    Note that I am not asserting that nothing illegal happened. Only that a number of the things being cited here as conclusive evidence, ain’t necessarily so.
    We have a legal presumption of innocence. That should be respected.
    We have a proper process. That should be carried out.

    Has it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.