Well, I want to reply to the objection because I dare say that when he gave that evidence on Wednesday he wasn't asked the question: Did you believe them or not because the answer he gave did not have any qualification in it and conveyed the impression that that's what had injured those patients. That is my point, your Honour.
That's why nobody asked him the question; because it clearly didn't arise from the evidence that he gave. There wasn't a shred of doubt expressed. If I can put this in context from Wednesday, what he started saying - well, there was a long passage about being careful not to say things that would identify him - and then on line 5:
"Q. When you spoke about the cases that were brought
following the events of 25 May you said that after you had
done intervention in those cases you sometimes also would
find out the history from the cases that were brought. In
the cases of gunshot wounds did you learn from the victims
who had inflicted those wounds?
A. Yes, I did. For a good number of them would say of
course they were hit by a stray bullet. And for those
coming from the Murray Town Barracks and Aberdeen area,
they were saying they were hit by shells coming - well,
coming from ECOMOG, yes.
Q. Thank you."
And we move on to something else.