|
|
|
Pictures from Troops Out Movement delegations
BLOODY SUNDAY
The
Bloody Sunday Murder Victims:
The following accounts appeared in either Ireland
on Sunday or BBC News in 1999-2000: Mickey Bradley was 22-years-old when he was shot in both arms and the lower chest. He now has limited use of his right arm and hand after the nerves were shattered. He says the events of Bloody Sunday have never left him and have dictated the course of his life. "I live, eat and sleep Bloody Sunday. It never goes away." The strain of the events in 1972 have put immense pressure on his personal life. A married man expecting his first child when he was shot, his first marriage later broke down. He says his second marriage is under strain. "I'm putting her under stress, I know I am, but I can't help it. It's all the stress and the pressure. Our wives are living a mental torture. She's the one who's there when I wake up in the night punching the pillow with all the anger coming out, shouting "Why Lord, why?" Mickey Bradley says that giving evidence to the Saville inquiry will be a traumatic experience he, as "a living victim" will not be spared. "You can't dig up the dead.
We're the people who are going to get insulted by this inquiry. We're
the ones who're going to talk for the dead. There weren't fourteen
people shot that day - there were twenty eight."
Alana Burke Alana Burke, who was 18-years-old, joined the march halfway through, "to see what fellas would be there". When violence broke out, she tried to run away but was in collision with an army personnel carrier. She was taken to hospital with crushed vertebrae. "My solicitor gave me my file the other day and I went through it page by page and I was just in tears. I only fully realised then that I had been in an ambulance with two dead bodies. And the smell of blood - I can still smell the blood in my nostrils." Alana, now 46-years-old, has had one child, but childbirth was complicated because of the damage to her womb. She eventually had to have a hysterectomy and she and her husband adopted their second child. She says the trauma has affected her marriage. "You try to talk about it, but you can't and you end up taking it out on all those close to you." The living wounded may feel overlooked by the public, by the media and by the Widgery inquiry, but Alana Burke believes they will play a crucial role in the Saville inquiry. "The wounded are overlooked,
but that is our gem. They don't know what we're going to say. There's
enough of us left to make a mark and the truth is going to come out,
if we've got anything to do with it."
Peggy Deery In October 1971 Peggy Deery buried her husband after a long illness. She was left a young widow with fourteen children ranging in age from sixteen years to ten months. She was in the waste ground close to the car park of the Rossville Flats when a paratrooper shot her in the thigh shortly after 4.10pm. The soldier who shot her approached and she was sure he was going to shoot her again. She pleaded with him in the name of her fourteen children. "Please mister, I'm all they have!" He ran off and left her, after which she was helped to a house in Chamberlain Street by some men. Her eldest daughter Margaret, just 15-years-old, became mother to her brood for the several months Peggy spent in hospital. Local priest Fr Tom O'Gara became a great mentor and friend, visiting her children every night with food and his guitar. The happiest memory the Deery children have of their mother was the day she returned home from hospital. Everything changed for the Deery family after Bloody Sunday. Their mother was never the same. She became fearful for her children's
safety and asked them to promise they would never go on a civil rights
march. Her worst fears were realised when two of her children died
tragically. Her 23-year-old son Michael died after a fight in 1986.
31-year-old Patrick was blown up with another IRA volunteer as they
primed a bomb in 1987. It was too heavy a blow for a woman already
over-burdened by pain and sorrow. On 26th January 1988 Peggy died,
aged just 53 years. Patrick McDaid Patrick McDaid was one of the men who helped the wounded Peggy Deery to the safety of No. 33 Chamberlain Street. He then decided to try and reach the Rossville Flats forecourt where he thought he would be safe. Young Jackie Duddy lay dying in the car park as the sound of high-velocity gunfire echoed all around. It was a scene of utter desolation and abandonment. Three or four souls crouched beside him trying to offer medical and spiritual assistance. A small group of men decided they
would make a dash for the alleyway leading from the car park to the
back of Joseph Place, just beyond the Rossville Flats forecourt. In
scenes reminiscent of Sarajevo, they started to make a run for it,
one at a time. Patrick almost made it to safety. Near the alleyway
he saw a low wall and decided to dive across it. As he did a paratrooper
fired. It was the luckiest dive of his life. "Only for that
split-second dive I would be dead. The dive meant the bullet only
grazed me in the back. That's how close it was!" Patrick McDaid is sceptical about
the new Bloody Sunday inquiry. "I can't see them being honest
and admitting that it was planned and deliberately executed."
Patrick Campbell Patrick Campbell was in his mid-50's when he was shot in the small of his back. The bullet lodged in him and was never fully removed. He was in the Rossville Flats forecourt when hit, close to where Barney McGuigan and Paddy Doherty died. He was married with nine children. After being shot, Patrick was placed in a car which rushed him to hospital. However, when the car reached Craigavon Bridge, the driver and a passenger were arrested by British soldiers. He was then driven by the military to the underside of Craigavon Bridge and put into an armoured car which contained another of the wounded, 20-year-old Joe Friel. Friel said he could see steam rising from Patrick's body and thought he was close to death. In the intimate terror and vulnerability of that moment, both men clasped each others hands and began to cry. Once in a while, Patrick spoke to his eldest son, John, about his experience. He told him how he feared for his life. At one point, an officer placed the cold steel of a pistol to Patrick's forehead. "Holy God! They are going to finish me," he thought. "That put a great fear in him," said John. "He had great fear of soldiers afterwards." Patrick Campbell died, a broken
man, in 1984. Daniel McGowan Daniel McGowan was 38-years-old when he was shot on Bloody Sunday. He was married and with eight children and his wife, Teresa, was expecting their ninth. They now have ten children. He worked as a maintenance operator at DuPont. When the shooting began, he found himself in the forecourt of the Rossville Flats, not quite sure which way to run. Daniel went to the aid of Patrick Campbell after he had been wounded. He assisted Campbell to an alleyway at the back of Joseph Place. Daniel then began to ascend steps which lead to Fahan Street but quickly retreated when he saw a soldier positioned on the ramparts of the Derry Walls looking down the barrel of his rifle at him. He had just reached the bottom of the steps when his right leg crumpled beneath him. An eyewitness to his wounding said he thought the shot which hit Daniel "might have come from [the] old city walls..." Daniel remains deeply traumatised
by the experience of Bloody Sunday. He is unable to express himself
adequately. "It changed everything," he says. He
is emotional and fights back the tears. He begins a litany of the
wounded: "Michael Bradley". Pause. "Mickey
Bridge". Pause. He is about to name someone else but ends
abruptly. "Can't talk," he says. Daniel Gillespie Daniel Gillespie has the distinction of being omitted by the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Widgery, from his list of wounded, in his infamous 'Widgery Report'. Daniel did not attend hospital and was treated locally for his wound to the head, but his wounding was known locally and among the press. He recalls a tall English gentleman arriving at his home two days after Bloody Sunday. "Are you Daniel Gillespie?" "Yes". "You were wounded on Sunday?" "Yes". "Mr Gillespie, where was the gunman standing when you were shot?" Daniel looked at him, momentarily stunned by his arrogance. Instinctively he drew back and felled the gentleman with a heavy smack to the face. He fell over the low garden fence and ran away. "I was very very lucky" he recalls. A bullet grazed his head, carving out a groove which required several stitches. As he tried to pick himself up, a young man asked: "Are you all right, mister?" "The next thing I heard was a grunt and he fell on top of me. I managed to push him off and I ran through the laneway into Abbey Park. As I ran, I heard several other shots behind me." Daniel was 27-years-old when shot
and worked as a steel erector. He was married with four children,
ranging from eight to two-years-old. Neither he nor his wife spoke
to their children about Bloody Sunday. It was only when he was visited
by a television crew a few years ago did they discover their father's
lucky escape. Joseph Friel "Mr Friel is an extremely lucky young man", surgeon Harry Bennett wrote on his medical record in 1972. He later said: "Mr Friel, you're better being born lucky instead of rich." Joe Friel ran across Rossville Street to Glenfada Park when the shooting began. He heard a boy named Gregory Wild shout: "There's the Brits!" As he turned to look, Joe saw paratroopers appear at the north-eastern end of Glenfada. The forward para was firing from the hip and after three or four shots, Joe felt a thump in his chest and he immediately began to spurt blood. "I'm shot! I'm shot!" he cried as he ran into Abbey Park. He was taken to a house in Lisfannon Park where he received some first-aid treatment from a young paramedic named Evelyn Lafferty. Several old ladies appeared and began to say the rosary over him. "Oh No!" he thought, thinking he must be dying. He was taken in a white car to hospital, accompanied by three people. At Barrack Street they were pulled out of the car leaving him alone in the back seat. A soldier and a policeman sat into the front of the car and drove off. The policeman commented: "That's what you get for playing with guns." Joe kicked the back of the seat in protest. The soldier driving immediately braked and said: "If you are going to behave like that you can lie there and die, you Irish bastard." He was transferred to the back of an armoured car where he was later joined by Patrick Campbell. Today, Joe is both traumatised and sceptical. "Jim Wray was my friend. I was shot where he fell. If I had fallen, the soldier who shot him would have finished me off, too. I have gone through guilt. The guilt of surviving. The guilt that asks, why me? Why am I here now?" Joe is sceptical about the Saville inquiry and the concept of British justice. "The two words don't belong in the same sentence," he argues. He believes Bloody Sunday was planned and that the presence of senior British army generals in Derry that afternoon lends weight to his belief. Joe worked with the British Inland
Revenue when he was shot. He is now retired due to ill health resulting
from Bloody Sunday. He is married with three children, aged twenty
four, twenty and ten-years-old. Michael Quinn Michael Quinn had just turned 17-years-old and was still at school when he was shot. He was quite literally a twitch of a head away from certain death. As he ran across Glenfada Park towards Abbey Park, he was shot from behind. The bullet ripped the right shoulder of his jacket before blowing away almost half his cheek bone and exiting through his nose. Michael was helped through Abbey Park and reached Butcher Street were he received medical help from two female Knights of Malta. They had to persuade him to lie on the ground since he wanted to remain standing. "I felt there was less wrong with me if I stood up." He remembers asking: "Can someone please get a car to get me out of here". There was much confusion and panic. Michael recalls lying in the hospital casualty asking: "Why did they shoot us when we weren't doing anything?" Twenty-eight years later he is still asking the same question. He laughs when I ask him if Bloody Sunday still haunts him. "Having been shot in the face, it's never too far from your thoughts. When you look in the mirror in the morning you are reminded of it. In that sense, it's very hard to get away from it. They are memories you'd rather try and forget." Michael graduated from Maynooth College
with a BA Bachelor in history and sociology in 1977. He now resides
in a suburb of Dublin with his wife and three children. Joseph Mahon Like skittles in a bowling alley, 16-year-old Joe Mahon was one of three people who fell close to one another in Glenfada Park. He noticed paratroopers appearing at the north-eastern entrance to Glenfada Park and thinking it was an arrest operation, bolted towards the exit leading to Abbey Park. He saw the leading para fire from the hip. Joe fell in the middle. To his right was Jim Wray and to his left, he thinks, was William McKinney. The latter was an older man wearing thick glasses and a heavy coat. He looked at young Mahon and said: "I'm hit! I'm hit!" He then began to moan. Joe was about to leave school to begin an apprenticeship as a joiner. That afternoon in Glenfada Park he had a premonition which caused him to remain absolutely still and pretend he was dead. At the time he did not realise he had been shot through the right hip bone and that a bullet was now lodged at the back of his left hip. He was conscious of Jim Wray speaking to people in hiding and making a desperate but unsuccessful attempt to rise. Mahon then heard the approaching footsteps of a para. Casually the soldier walked past him and as he drew level with Jim Wray he fired two bullets into his back. It was the execution of an already wounded man. Young Joe watched in terror as the paratrooper continued towards the alleyway leading to Abbey Park, through which several people,including three wounded, had escaped. He heard the para fire at least three more rounds through the alleyway. Young Joe recognised a Scottish accent when the soldier boasted: "I've got another one." Mahon then heard a paratrooper call from behind: "Okay Dave, we're pulling out." Before retreating 'Dave' walked towards Joe and the now slain Jim Wray again. Joe saw him remove his helmet to wipe his brow. Above a blackened face, Joe could see tightly-cropped fair hair. Joe listened as the soldiers withdrew. He waited for what seemed like an eternity to be sure the paratroopers had fully retreated from Glenfada Park. He then made a near fatal error. As he turned his head to check, his worst nightmares were realised. Standing, looking in his direction, was 'Dave'. The para saw Joe's movement. Realising the boy was alive and a witness to his deeds, Dave dropped on one knee and took aim. Mahon looked away, sure that his end had come. Just then a young female paramedic arrived on the scene and ran into Glenfada Park shouting: "Don't shoot - First Aid". Dave turned the barrel of his rifle in her direction and fired one round before withdrawing. Joe is convinced it was the last round he had. The young paramedic recoiled, the bullet ripping through a trouser leg and narrowly missing her ankle. Her name was Evelyn Lafferty - and Joe owes her his life. Evelyn ran back into Glenfada and proceeded to check the dead and wounded. She gave medical assistance to Joe and later visited him in hospital. In 1973, Joe and Evelyn began to see each other on a regular basis. In March 1974, they married. They have five children, ranging in ages from twenty five to sixteen. Joe remains resolute in his determination to see justice done. "Deep down what bugs me is that I don't want this guy to get away. I saw him shooting Jim Wray and I am willing to say in court that I saw him do it. He knew the man wasn't armed. He knew the man was already wounded. And he came up and fired two more rounds in his back. It was murder. If that was me or some fellow from Creggan we would have been in jail long ago. It has just been covered up."
ur
BLOODY SUNDAY INQUIRY 2003
The Bloody Sunday Inquiry, sitting in London, heard that in October 1971, former British Prime Minister Edward Heath, instructed the British Army to carry out an assessment of the measures they would propose "if they were instructed that the primary goal was to bring terrorism to an end at the earliest moment, without regard to the inconvenience to the civilian population". The minutes of the Cabinet Committee of Northern Ireland, GEN47, of 6th October 1971, record Heath as saying that the first priority should be to defeat the "gunmen" by military means and that the government "would have to accept whatever political penalties were inevitable". In his statement to the Inquiry, Heath said that he did not know to what political penalties he was referring. February Soldier 151 admitted giving a false statement because "we knew we had done something dreadfully wrong". He told the Inquiry "There were two RMP's (military police officers) in the interview room and I recall that I found the interview intimidating", adding "I was terrified of the RMP, they were a law unto themselves". Under cross examination, he sensationally admitted "I did not write the statement myself. I just signed it at the end of the interview". PSNI chief, Hugh Orde described the Bloody Sunday Inquiry as "a waste of money". He said it was time to forget Bloody Sunday and other controversial past killings by the British Army and police. March Diary records from witness INQ179 - a former major in the Coldstream Guards - were read out to the Inquiry. INQ179 wrote in his diary on the day of Bloody Sunday that he was horrified by the Paras' actions, adding: "Words cannot describe what a dreadful and ghastly regiment that is". The next day he wrote in his diary: "There is something quite horrible in seeing young men shot down by totally undisciplined troops, who take pride and pleasure in this legalised murder. I saw the snatch squad of the Parachute Regiment (1st Battallion) bring in civilian prisoners - the way these savage, trained terrorists treated those civilians was beyond description." April Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford said at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry that he was unable to accept that those killed on Bloody Sunday were innocent. Michael Mansfield QC, representing the families of two of the victims, highlighted that legal representatives for the British Army had already indicated to the Inquiry that they believed those killed were innocent. But Col Wilford, who admitted that he had not been following the Inquiry's proceedings, said "I have not been shown evidence that this is the case". Colonel Wilford was also questioned about how he managed to miss "99%" of the shootings carried out by his troops in the Bogside during Bloody Sunday. In his original statement to the Saville Inquiry, Colonel Wilford said that he only witnessed one soldier fire one shot. May A senior MI5 manager - 'E' - giving evidence anonymously and from behind a curtain, told the Bloody Sunday Inquiry in London that she had, the previous week, read the statements of other officers scheduled to testify on the same topic. She said: "Council to the Inquiry agreed that we should be aware of each other's evidence, there were sort of no surprises ...". An amazed Barry McDonald QC, represeting some of the Bloody Sunday families said: "Say that again. Council to the Inquiry suggested that you read the statements ...?" 'E' replied: "Well our legal advisors told us that it had been agreed that we could read the statements ..." Seeking clarity, McDonald asked: "Do you mean your own council, council for the Security Services?" ' E' replied: "No. Council to the Inquiry." Ensuring no confusion in the matter, McDonald, in almost disbelief, seeked confirmation. He asked: "Coucil to the Inquiry?" 'E' confirmed the obvious collusion: "Yes", she replied. Unfortunately, 'E' was not pressed on her description of council to the Inquiry as "our legal advisors." June General Sir Michael Jackson, Britain's most senior soldier, faced allegations of having played a key role in the cover up of the Bloody Sunday killings. Documents from 1972, apparently in his handwriting, gave what lawyers to the Bloody Sunday families insisted was an inaccurate account of the shootings. Michael Mansfield QC, representing two of the families, characterised one of the documents - a 'shot list' - dated 31st January 1972, in Jackson's handwriting as a "fabrication". It was signed by Major Edward Loden, commander of 'support company' . However, the body of the document was in a different handwriting, which the legal team representing most of the soldiers - including Jackson and Loden - agreed was Jackson's. July Soldier 'P', a corporal in the Parachute regiment on the day of Bloody Sunday, said in his written evidence to the Saville Inquiry: "I have no recollection of firing my weapon or of seeing or hearing others firing weapons". But in 1972, the witness made two statements. In the first, on the evening of Bloody Sunday, he claimed he fired eleven shots in Rossville Street, killing a gunman and a nail bomber and firing warning shots over the heads of a hostile crowd. In the second statement, two days later, he claimed he fired only nine shots. Christopher Clarke QC, council to the Inquiry, told the witness that he and another soldier (Soldier 'J') were the only candidates so far responsible for the shooting of Michael McDaid, William Nash, John Young and Hugh Gilmour. Soldier 'P' denied the allegation. Arthur Harvey QC, for the majority of the Bloody Sunday families, suggested that Soldier 'P' did not hit a gunman with three shots, but shot three people who were taking cover behind the rubble barricade with one bullet each. The witness denied this. "I suggest to you that you do not have any failure of memory, what you have is a failure of conscience" Mr Harvey said. The witness denied this was the case. August The Bloody Sunday Inquiry broke for the summer recess. September The officer in charge of the platoon believed to be responsible for eleven of the fatal shootings on Bloody Sunday told the Saville Inquiry that he could not remember seeing any of his men open fire at targets. Arthur Harvey QC, for the majority of the families, asked Lieutenant 119, who was commander of the seventeen members of the Anti-Tank Platoon in the Parachute regiment: "The men that you were in charge of could well have killed eleven people and seriously wounded seven others; that is eighteen people in all within a space, that in truth and in fact, is not greatly different than the size of this courtroom. How effective have you been able to estimate your command and control of those men on January 30th 1972?" Lieutenant 119 replied: "I believe that in my own conduct and in the conduct of the NCO's who commanded the little groups, it was as it should be." Mr Harvey continued: "After the Widgery Inquiry did you re-evaluate your command and control of your men?" '119' answered: "No, I did not." Mr Harvey said:"Even though Lord Widgery came to a conclusion that your soldiers fired probably without justification and probably at a crowd that was fleeing from them in Glenfada Park and that they had fired, probably recklessly; you did not re-evaluate what you could have done to have avoided that situation arising as a commander?" Lieutenant 119 answered: "Not that I recall sir, I got on with my career." October Soldier 'F' who had previously acknowledged that he had shot three of those who were killed on Bloody Sunday - Michael Kelly, William McKinney and Patrick Doherty - admitted to having in fact, killed four demonstrators. Under intense questioning by Michael Mansfield QC, the reluctant Soldier 'F' was eventually left with no credible alternative but to admit, for the first time, that he had killed 41-year-old Barney McGuigan, who had been waving a white handkerchief at the time, whilst going to the aid of the mortally wounded Patrick Doherty. When asked by Mr Mansfield if he would finally admit shooting Mr McGuigan to his wife and six children, who were sitting in the public gallery, soldier 'F' nonchalantly said "yes". The Inquiry was forced to adjourn for several minutes as Barney McGuigan's widow, Bridie, was led away in tears by her family, followed by distraught members of other victims' families. At the end of the evidence, soldier 'F' was warned that he had given perjured evidence to the Widgery Tribunal in 1972 and to the current Inquiry. He was warned that the evidence now suggested that he had shot the men without justification - that is to say that he murdered them. Soldier 'F' said this was incorrect, insisting he only fired at bombers and gunmen. Soldier 'H' also gave evidence in October. A number of witnesses had previously given evidence to the Inquiry that 22-year-old Jim Wray was killed by a soldier at close range in Glenfada Park after being shot in the back .Soldier 'H' admitted shooting a youth after aiming at the centre of his back in Glenfada Park, but said this person had staggered away clutching his shoulder. Lord Gifford QC, council for the Wray family, referred to claims by another paratrooper, Soldier 027, that Soldier 'H' had fired from the hip at a range of twenty yards, killing one man and wounding another. Soldier 027 had said: "He then moved forward and fired again, killing the wounded man." Soldier 'H' fired twenty two shots on Bloody Sunday. He claimed that he fired nineteen of these at a gunman behind a frosted window in Glenfada Park. However, under questioning from Michael Mancfied QC, he conceded this incident could not have occurred in Glenfada Park. Even Lord Widgery, in his report of the first Inquiry in 1972, rejected claims Soldier 'H' had fired nineteen times at the same target. He said these shots were "wholly unaccounted for." Séamus Treacy QC, council to some of the victims' relatives, accused Soldier 'H' of being a systematic liar who had failed to account for the large number of shots he had fired on that day. Mr Treacy put it to him: "The reason that you have failed to account for those large number of shots is that you may well have killed and injured many other people on that day than you are admitting to." Soldier 'H' dismissed the accusation. Soldier 203 admitted joining the UDA after Bloody Sunday. Soldier150, who drove the car of Gerald Donaghy, said he did not see any nail bombs on the body and certainly would not have driven the car if there had been nail bombs on Mr Donaghy's body. "I am sure if there had been a nail bomb or bombs in the man's pockets I would have seen them" he said. November Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness gave evidence to the Saville Inquiry about his knowledge of Bloody Sunday. Immediately, the British media were stirred into a reporting frenzy, displaying a desire for information on the proceedings not previously demonstrated. Four, five and six minute reports replaced the one-liners on British television news. Column upon column and article after article appeared in the press. A media scrum assembled at the Guildhall in Derry for Mr McGuinness' evidence, forcing exasperated family members to protest on the Guildhall steps. "This has absolutely nothing to do with Bloody Sunday thirty years ago" said a frustrated Gerry Duddy, brother of Jackie, the first and youngest of those murdered, "it's about politics today." December The Inquiry continues to hear evidence from IRA members present on the day. As Fern Lane stated in the article 'Selective Interests - Bloody Sunday Inquiry' (see below):"Number of people killed and wounded by the British Army on Bloody Sunday: 28 "Number of people killed and wounded by the IRA on Bloody Sunday: 0"
Selective
Interests - Bloody Sunday Inquiry By Fern Lane
When people speak of the victims of Bloody Sunday the first thing that springs to mind are those who died and were injured on that day and undoubtedly, they are the main victims. But the events of Bloody Sunday impacted upon this island to a degree that changed people's lives forever and in the process we ended up with hundreds, if not thousands, of victims. It is impossible to quantify how many people were affected by Bloody Sunday in one way or another. How many people are dead who would not have died, how many people spent years in prison because of what happened in those 27 minutes on January 30 1972, how many lives were destroyed in some way as a direct result of what happened on Bloody Sunday? All these questions are impossible to answer, as is the question what would have happened in the North if Bloody Sunday had not taken place? A brief look at the statistics tell their own story. In the years preceding Bloody Sunday, 16 people died across the North in 1969, 24 in 1970 and 170 in 1971. In 1972 after Bloody Sunday 472 people died, in 1973 that figure was 252, in 1974 there were 294 deaths, in 1975 a total of 257 died and in 1976 almost 300 people lost their lives. In Derry itself three people died as a result of the Troubles in 1969, 1970 saw five deaths, when three IRA men died in a fire in Creggan along with two children, Bernadette and Carol McCool. In 1971, with the introduction of internment, some 22 people died in Derry but the next year, with the Bloody Sunday deaths, a total of 56 people died in Derry city alone. The unionists and British Government attempted to regain control of the security situation on Bloody Sunday but by their actions they ensured that our society would be convulsed by war for years to come. That war destroyed lives right across the country and few people can say they were immune from what happened. The Saville Inquiry presently hearing evidence about Bloody Sunday has set aside several witnesses so intelligence reports can be obtained on them. By and large, these are former republican prisoners and it seems the Inquiry want reports on their activities. Ironically enough, the vast bulk of these people joined the IRA as a direct result of Bloody Sunday and were not members at the time so it is difficult to see what sort of reports can be compiled that would be of relevance to the Inquiry. But these former prisoners are no different from the thousands of others who became involved in the Troubles as a result of Bloody Sunday. The British state has always longed to portray the situation here as a conflict between unionists and nationalists with the British as the honest brokers trying to keep both sides apart. Bloody Sunday changed all that as it showed the British state killing people who were ostensibly their own citizens and then lying to the world about what had happened. Undoubtedly Bloody Sunday meant that no solution to the Northern problem was going to be found in the short term. It ensured that the conflict would intensify touching more and more lives as it did, and it radicalised a generation of nationalists who could never look on the British in the same way again. The British Government was not aware of the consequences of its actions on Bloody Sunday. In fact, the evidence seems to point to the fact that it was quite pleased with the lesson it had handed out. We cannot say with any certainty that if Bloody Sunday had not happened things would not have developed as they did. However, it is a fairly safe bet to say that Bloody Sunday ensured that the conflict lasted as long as it did and that the seeds of distrust sown that January day meant that, for many young nationalists, the message was clear, the British only respected physical force. It took a long long time for that attitude to fade and another course of action to be taken. Maybe if Bloody Sunday had not occurred that journey would have been shorter and a lot less painful.
Families' Marathon Over There will be final submissions by the lawyers in the summer and Lord Saville is expected to publish his report next year. The Director of Public Prosecutions will then have to decide whether to bring charges. If the DPP does not bring charges, then some of the families are likely to launch a private prosecution. John Kelly, brother of Michael, 17, who was killed, said: "The evidence proves our people were totally innocent that day. They were murdered and there were attempted murders of 14 others." A number of the relatives have been with the inquiry every day, attending hearings in Derry and in London. For almost four years, the Bloody Sunday Inquiry has been akin to a full-time job for them. Kay Duddy's brother, Jackie, was just 17 when he was gunned down as he ran through the Rossville flats car park alongside future Bishop of Derry Dr Edward Daly. Pictures of Dr Daly with a blood-stained handkerchief leading his body out of the Bogside have become one of the iconic images of the day. "It has been very emotional. It has been an emotional rollercoaster listening to graphic detail, particularly in London to the soldiers - classing my brother and the others as nail bombers and gunmen," Ms Duddy said. For the Derry woman, the worst moment came when she saw face-to-face the soldiers who killed her brother. "I was numb. I did not feel hatred surprisingly enough - they looked everywhere except at us." She admits that the last 32 years have had a huge impact on the Duddy family, including the six years of the Inquiry. "One of the family was taken from us, a link in the chain was broken. "I'll never know if he would have married, if I would have had another sister-in-law or more nieces and nephews. His life was just taken away that day," she said. Michael McKinney's brother, William, was a compositor with the Derry Journal newspaper. A keen photographer, he had a cine camera when he was gunned down at Glenfada Park. His death was admitted by Soldier F. He believes the inquiry has already served a useful purpose. The truth of his brother's innocence is now clearer than ever. While the oral evidence is now to an end, Mr McKinney believes there is still much work to be done. But the moment Soldier F admitted killing his brother was the most dramatic of the last six years for Mr McKinney. "When I left the chamber that day, I felt my emotions coming on. "I found myself trying to lose myself among the crowd standing across from Central Hall (in London), trying to find a corner which I couldn't do. "It was a very strange day for me," he said.
Bloody Sunday Inquiry faces more delays The Bloody Sunday Inquiry is facing yet more delays following an unprecedented demand for access to lawyers files. Since March 2000, more than 900 witnesses have given evidence about the events of Bloody Sunday, when on 30th January 1972, 13 Derry civil rights marchers were shot dead by members of the British Army's Parachute Regiment. A 14th person died later from the injuries and trauma inflicted on him on the day. Today, it emerged that the tribunal has written to the legal teams, the government, the police and MI5 to request details of notes and correspondence with witnesses which had been confidential until recently. The request follows a Court of Appeal ruling in a separate, non-related, case in England which found that this sort of material was no longer privileged information. Those involved in the tribunal had been required to provide all relevant material, but documents covered by legal professional privilege, such as solicitors notes taken during interviews with witnesses, were exempt. The legal teams are currently considering their positions but could refuse to hand over the material or challenge the tribunal's demand in the courts. And even if the legal teams are eventually ordered to hand over new material, it could open the door to request and counter request for notes and correspondence from other legal teams. Speaking to Troops Out Movement News from London this evening, where the families are currently on a TOM speaking tour of England, Michael McKinney, for the Bloody Sunday families, said: "If the Inquiry is delayed over this legal matter, we have nothing to fear. "I would say that the soldiers who gave evidence to the Inquiry would have far more to fear from the tribunal's request for access to lawyer's files than other parties." Lord Saville and his fellow judges were expected to deliver their report to the British Government next year.
Bloody Sunday Relatives Guests of the Troops Out Movement Two brothers of Bloody Sunday victims were in England last week as guests of the Troops Out Movement. John Kelly, brother of Michael, and Mickey McKinney, brother of William spoke in London, They were joined in Birmingham, Coventry and Preston by Cahill McElhinney, brother of Kevin. In Coventry they spoke at a meeting arranged to discuss the Amritsar massacre a few years after Bloody Sunday (13th April 1978) when 13 Sikh protestors were killed in the Panjaab province in circumstances similar to Bloody Sunday. The Bloody Sunday relatives had been invited to give updates on the Inquiry, its lessons and the feelings of the families. At the meetings, Mickey McKinney explained how the political situation in Derry at the time affected the nationalist community's voting rights, housing allocation and job opportunities and this led to the formation of the Derry Civil Rights Association. He gave a history of the events leading up to Bloody Sunday - the 'Battle of the Bogside'; the introduction of the British Army; the introduction of internment without trial, which led to the setting up of the 'no-go' areas in Derry; the demonstration on Magilligan Strand, where demonstrators were viciously beaten off the beach by the British Parachute Regiment and the cancellation of the loyalist march that was planned for the day that became known as Bloody Sunday. Mickey then went on to recount the events of the day itself, ending with how the British Army stated on that day's evening news that they had engaged in a gun battle with the IRA and had killed gunmen and nail bombers. John Kelly explained that following Bloody Sunday, the victims' families would only officially meet once a year at the Bloody Sunday Commemoration. He said that it was decided that they should form the 'Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign' in 1992 on the 20th anniversary of the murders, with the aim to have the case re-opened. John said that some people in Derry "thought we were mad for taking on the British establishment". He recalled the difficulties that faced them until, eventually, six years later Tony Blair announced to the British House of Commons that there would be a new inquiry into Bloody Sunday. However, any optimism for a full, open, honest and transparent public inquiry was quashed when it was discovered that three days before Mr Blair's announcement to the Commons, the murder weapons were being destroyed. "Those weapons were preserved for all those years" said John. "The British Ministry of Defence acted three days before the Inquiry was announced and destroyed evidence. It has been a continuous problem during the Inquiry. For instance, the hundreds of photographs put before Widgery and other documentation had now somehow, mysteriousy disappeared." He told of how the 'open, independent, public inquiry' was constantly thwarted by the British establishment by way of seemingly endless High Court appeals, resulting in cypher numbers being allocated to witnesses, the screening of witnesses, Public Interest Immunity Certificates being issued and then by the Inquiry being moved to London to hear the soldiers' evidence. John told of the emotional difficulties faced by the families during the Inquiry, especially when they faced and heard evidence from the very soldiers who had murdered their loved ones. "The shooters' evidence was the hardest to endure" explained John "because the families were seeing, for the first time, the people who murdered our people. "But it was worth while for us to see them, face to face, forced to give evidence that they clearly didn't want to give. "On a personal level, to sit in the same room as the person who murdered my brother was the hardest to endure... it was." John also told of the "collective amnesia" of the soldiers while giving evidence to the Inquiry. He recalled the upsurge of media interest when Martin McGuinness gave evidence when the Inquiry returned to Derry and how it became "the Martin McGuinness Inquiry". John informed the audiences that on Friday last, it emerged that the tribunal has written to the legal teams, the government, the police and MI5 to request details of notes and correspondence with witnesses which had been confidential until recently. The request follows a Court of Appeal ruling in the BCCI case in England which found that this sort of material was no longer privileged information. "If the Inquiry is delayed over this legal matter, the families have nothing to fear. "I would say that the soldiers who gave evidence to the Inquiry would have far more to fear from the tribunal's request for access to lawyer's files than other parties. It is them who murdered our people. "We've had to wait thirty two years for justice and if we have to wait another two or three years, then so be it. Because what we want is the truth - plain and simple - and hopefully, Saville will deliver that truth".
Not one soldier told the truth: The Bloody Sunday Inquiry By Fern Lane The Bloody Sunday Inquiry was told on Monday that not one of the soldiers or their commanding officers had told the truth when they gave evidence about the events of January 1972. The accusation came from Arthur Harvey QC, lawyer for some of the families, as the tribunal began two weeks of hearings in Derry in advance of the final oral submissions by all parties in October. The current hearings are to enable Lord Saville and his colleagues to question lawyers in detail about their written submissions and to hear evidence from one further witness.
Before answering questions on his submission, Harvey told the inquiry that, decade by decade, the army's account of what had happened had changed. Initially, the army's case had been that it was not responsible for the killing and wounding of 27 people. It claimed that the IRA was responsible. Then, as that case became untenable, it was changed to suggest that "those who were shot and injured fully merited what occurred, that they, either directly or indirectly, were involved in acts of terror against members of the Parachute Regiment". Now, with that argument having been effectively disproved, the army had changed tack once again. Now, explained Harvey, the army was claiming that "not only did they shoot the 27 persons, they probably shot considerably more... but there is a conspiracy within this city to conceal the deaths of individuals who had families, who were known within the community and that the community therefore has conspired to assist this. "The case is now, not that the defendants were not innocent, but the soldiers are innocent. They are both equally innocent, because it was the activities, not of those who were actually shot and known to be shot, but the acts of others who must have been shot, who are unidentified and have remained unidentified for an excess of 30 years, which are to blame." This argument, he said, was "threadbare" and had been demonstrated as such "because those who were posed the questions failed the very first hurdle in any inquiry of whatever nature: they simply did not choose to tell the truth. "It is a choice that each of these soldiers were offered, and a choice that none of them took." Families want answers In contrast to the changing nature of the army's account, the position of the families has always been "based upon certainties: the certainty that those who were shot and injured were innocent of any wrongdoing; the certainty that there was no justification for shooting them; the fact that there was never any objective justification for their being shot because of the actions at or close to them; and the certainty that they were not shot by mistake, that they were shot deliberately". Nevertheless, said Harvey, these certainties did not provide answers. All the families could do was pose questions. "Those questions can only be answered by those who shot them, by those who were responsible for commanding those who shot them, and those who were responsible for designing the plan and implementing it, during the course of which they were shot... those questions, to paraphrase the language of General Jackson, required individual soldiers and their officers to look inside themselves for the courage to tell the truth. Regrettably, that has not occurred." Lack of accountability Further, he added, the answers to the questions posed "require that which is absent at almost every level of responsibility: clarity, attributability, accountability. That did not begin with the soldiers who fired the shots. Undoubtedly, it is substantially in their interests for there to be a lack of clarity, a lack of accountability, a lack of attributability. It did not begin with them. It began with the government at Westminster. "The lack of clarity suits all purposes for this Inquiry except the search for the truth" he said. "Governments come and go. It is easy for a government 20 years later to apologise. It does not relieve the grief or the anguish, nor does it provide explanations as to why things should have happened. Throughout, there has been deliberate manipulation of communication at all levels to ensure a self-serving obfuscation of the clear lines of responsibility." For all the attempts by the British Government and the army to frustrate the inquiry, and despite the sustained attempts by each layer of command, from the British government right down to the soldiers themselves, to deny their own part in Bloody Sunday, the lines of responsibility can be clearly mapped. Firstly, said Harvey, the British Government was responsible for what occurred under Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In addition, the Ministry of Defence had political responsibility for the Army. "The senior officers in the Army should not have been abandoned to absorb the attitudes of the Stormont government in the manner that they had by General Ford" he said. Officers saw nothing "General Ford was responsible because he deliberately selected the march in Derry as an opportunity to impose a regimented security solution on a political problem. He was responsible in that he went to Derry as an observer and yet, if the evidence that he gave is to be seen as credible, he was the observer who observed nothing. In fact, as soon as it became clear that soldiers were firing, he absented himself from the field. The explanation is that he was going to get an overview, which he did not quite achieve. His failure, therefore, is simply a failure of bad luck, bad timing, bad location. His failure, in fact, was that the plan that he had devised was horrendously incompetent. "Responsibility lies with 8th Brigade, because [they] ought, when 1 Para were imposed upon them, to have taken command and control... to have insisted upon a proper arrest plan being introduced; to have insisted upon scrutiny of the arrest plan; and to have insisted on communications which at all times kept them appraised of what was happening on the ground. "Colonel Wilford is responsible because he, more than any other, had immediate control of the company which actually carried out most of the shooting. He also, it would appear, established himself in a position which gave him a substantial overview of what occurred. Yet he did not see or hear or have reported to him the shooting by Machine-Gun Platoon before he went in. He abandoned the position of command and control. "Major Loden is directly responsible because, although he had the grandstand view on William Street, all that he surveyed, he saw nothing, controlled nothing, contributed nothing. The other officers on the ground almost universally saw and heard nothing in relation to the shootings that led to the death of the individuals. It is hardly surprising that individual soldiers and non-commissioned officers should take their lead from what they saw from above. That responsibility came down to them from government, from their own Ministry of Defence, through Headquarters Northern Ireland, through 8th Brigade, to the individual soldier who had to stand up and justify his shots. Of course, had he have done so, he would have been immediately exposed. That fear of exposure, said Harvey, was the reason behind the lack of clarity. But, he added, it had been to no avail. "Ultimately, they have been held to account for their actions in this Tribunal, and the fact that their answers have been wanting is simply a reflection of the fact that the case is fundamentally wanting."
Bloody Sunday soldiers threaten court action The BBC has reported that the Bloody Sunday soldiers are on the verge of taking the Saville Inquiry to court. The move could not only delay the Tribunal but affect what Lord Saville can say in his final report. The Tribunal has ruled it does not have to use the criminal standard of proof if, for example, it is to find that a particular soldier probably shot someone without justification. Lord Saville says the Tribunal is not a court, does not convict anyone and that it is his duty to investigate what happened and to report what he has found. But the soldiers had argued that the tribunal must use the criminal standard because the consequences for the soldiers concerned would be very serious. But having lost the argument with Lord Saville at this stage, the barristers for the soldiers are now very likely to take the Tribunal to court. If that happens, the Tribunal could face further delays and if the soldiers win the argument in court, this will affect what Lord Saville can actually say in his final report. Lord Saville of Newdigate and the Commonwealth judges accompanying him on the inquiry began their work in March 2000, and since then, more than 900 witnesses have given evidence to the tribunal. Christopher Clarke QC for the Inquiry is due to make his closing statements on 22nd November at the Guildhall in Derry.
Bloody Sunday: the final reckoning begins Britain's longest and most expensive legal inquiry reaches the summing up stage Today in Derry a barrister will sum up the evidence in the biggest investigation in British legal history: Lord Saville's inquiry into the killing by British paratroopers of 14 unarmed civil rights marchers on Bloody Sunday, January 30 1972. The soldiers killed the men and boys, and wounded 13 others, in 20 minutes of gunfire. Some were running away, others were simply taunting the troops. The Ministry of Defence finally admitted during the inquiry that none of those shot or wounded was armed. Christopher Clarke QC, counsel to the inquiry, will point to key issues and questions raised in 432 days of oral testimony from more than 900 witnesses and in thousands of written statements. He started the hearings in the same building - Derry's Guildhall - more than four and a half years ago, on March 28 2000, with an opening speech that lasted 42 days, also the longest in British legal history. Bloody Sunday provoked a spiral of violence in Northern Ireland. It also panicked Edward Heath, then prime minister, into setting up an inquiry, under the chief justice, Lord Widgery. His report was regarded as a whitewash. But it was not until more than 30 years later that documents emerged from the national archives casting serious doubts about the way the Widgery tribunal was conducted and the evidence it heard. Before that inquiry began, Sir Edward told Lord Widgery: "It has to be remembered that we are in Northern Ireland fighting not only a military war but a propaganda war." The secretary to the Widgery inquiry said in a memo that the lord chief justice would "pile up the case against the deceased". Statements by paratroopers to the military police, made available to Widgery but kept from the families of the victims and their lawyers, were also released. These revealed serious discrepancies between the accounts soldiers gave to the military police and the evidence they gave to Lord Widgery. Some soldiers later admitted to the Saville inquiry they had lied to the military police. The new evidence and statements made by a number of soldiers unhappy about the cover-ups were produced by the Irish government in a dossier sent to London in 1997. The following year Tony Blair agreed to set up a new inquiry - the first time two judicial tribunals have investigated the same incident. The British government has never given its reasons for setting up the Saville inquiry though it is, in effect, part of the peace process and an attempt at truth and reconciliation. In his opening speech, Mr Clarke said the tribunal's task was "to discover as far as humanly possible in the circumstances, the truth ... not the truth as people would like it to be, but the truth, pure and simple, painful or unacceptable to whoever that truth may be." It has been a formidable task. The Ministry of Defence was less than helpful. It gave the Saville inquiry team a list of hundreds of soldiers who "may" have been present on Bloody Sunday. Some were, some were not. Rifles, which Lord Saville had asked should be preserved, were destroyed. When soldiers reluctantly came to give evidence in London - they refused to go to Derry - they insisted on anonymity. "I can't remember" was a persistent refrain. One soldier said he fired 19 shots through a single small hole in a window of a flat from a distance of 300 metres even though he admitted it was "incredible". General Sir Robert Ford, commander of land forces in Northern Ireland, wrote a memo saying the minimum force necessary to restore law and order was to "shoot selected ringleaders" of what the army called the "Derry young hooligans". He insisted it was a private note expressing an opinion and the idea went no further. Paramilitaries - the Official and Provisional IRA also initially refused to give evidence. After the tribunal ruled that MI5 and army intelligence had to release records identifying members of the two organisations, many paramilitaries came forward. The inquiry heard evidence from the Official IRA command staff in Derry at the time and from leading Provos, including Martin McGuinness. Their cooperation with a British tribunal was unprecedented. As one former paramilitary told the inquiry: "I come from an era where we did not recognise the courts." Lord Saville is likely to conclude that there was no conspiracy at a political level in Britain or Northern Ireland to provoke violence. He is expected, however, to criticise senior army officers for confusion over the orders given to the paratroopers, and their tactics. Evidence to the inquiry suggested that the Paras, who had not been deployed to Derry's Bogside before, were hyped up, ill-disciplined, and trigger-happy. The inquiry also heard that the paramilitaries had agreed before the march against internment, which was made illegal by emergency powers, not to carry weapons. To fire at the soldiers would have been totally counterproductive, witnesses told the inquiry. However, two members of the Official IRA admitted firing some shots after the soldiers had opened fire at the marchers. They were quickly bundled away. Though it is plain that paratroopers did not tell the truth to the inquiry, Lord Saville will have to establish whether there was any rational explanation for their actions and whether the shooting was premeditated. Some doubt he will be able to keep to this deadline. He will also have to demonstrate his inquiry was worth it - in terms of its cost, estimated at £155m, its stated aim of establishing the truth, and closing what many, not only republicans, believe was one of the British army's most shameful episodes. In session: Time and money Announced in January 1998. Opened in March 2000 with a 42-day speech by counsel to the inquiry, the longest on record. Ended this month. Sat for 434 days. Lord Saville hopes to publish his findings in summer 2005 Expected to cost £155m. Fees for Eversheds, London-based solicitors' firm serving the inquiry, expected to total more than £12m. Earnings for Christopher Clarke QC, counsel to the inquiry, who gave up lucrative private practice, estimated at more than £3m 920 witnesses gave oral evidence. Another 1,000 gave written statements Oral evidence heard from 245 soldiers, 34 paramilitaries, 505 civilians, 49 journalists, and seven priests Evidence included 121 audiotapes, 109 videotapes and 13 volumes of photographs 14m words were spoken at the inquiry The inquiry website has had more than 9m hits.
Bloody Sunday: Key questions still to be answered After more than 400 days of evidence and more than 900 witnesses, it is still unclear which soldiers shot 27 civilians on Bloody Sunday in Derry, the Saville Inquiry was told today. Counsel to the inquiry Christopher Clarke QC, in his closing statement, said the central question before the tribunal was why and how were 13 civilians killed and 14 wounded at a civil rights march in the city on January 30, 1972. This, he said, could be broken down into two questions: Who shot them? And was there any justification for doing so? "It has to be said that, even after many days of evidence, the answer to even the first question - who shot them? - is not, on the soldiers' evidence, in any way clear." Mr Clarke, whose final speech is expected to last two days at the Guildhall in Derry, said the tribunal could take one of two views on this. "One view that the tribunal might take is that this is something that is not surprising if, as they say to be the case, soldiers came under fire from unexpected quarters and had swiftly to retaliate." The second was that the soldiers, while claiming they hit gunmen and nail bombers, seemed unable to explain why they killed or wounded 27 people who were not involved. "These considerations may have a cumulative effect. The tribunal may attach some significance to the fact that so much is unexplained," he said. "It might conclude, taking that fact with all the other evidence, that so much is unexplained because no justifiable explanation could be given. "On the other hand, it might take the view that uncomfortable facts have been airbrushed out of history and that the situation the soldiers faced was radically different to that of which the civilian evidence speaks," he added. Mr Clarke has presented his final submission, consisting of ten volumes, to the inquiry team. This summation is aimed at giving the three judges an overview of the issues they have to decide on, a summary of significant evidence and an indication of the range of conclusions the tribunal might reach. The final report by Lord Saville and his fellow judges is expected to be published by the summer of next year - more than seven years after Tony Blair announced the inquiry.
Bloody Sunday QC speaks of Para's "contradictions" Contradictions in military evidence could lead the Bloody Sunday Tribunal to conclude there was no clear reason to enter one of the main killing grounds, it was claimed today. Counsel to the Saville Inquiry Christopher Clarke QC made the assertion while discussing the activities of paratroopers in the Glenfada Park/Abbey Park area of Derry, where four civilians were killed and another five wounded. Mr Clarke, speaking on the second day of his closing submission, pointed out the discrepancies in testimony of the members of the Anti-Tank Platoon. One soldier said they moved from Kells Walk into Glenfada Park North to cut off a group of rioters, while another said he saw two men, one who appeared to be carrying a rifle, move into the area. A third claimed he ordered the deployment in order to arrest a man who had fired a low velocity weapon from the car park at Glenfada Park. Mr Clarke said the tribunal might decide that all of these activities were taking place at the time the paras decided to move in. But he added: "Alternatively, the tribunal might conclude that the difficulties, or if they feel them so to be, the contradictions within the Anti-Tank Platoon`s evidence demonstrate that there was no clear reason to enter Glenfada Park North and that various members of the platoon had fashioned their evidence to provide a retrospective justification of their movements." The senior barrister said the tribunal was faced with the acute difficulty of establishing the facts, given the wide discrepancy between civilian and military witnesses in Glenfada Park and Abbey Park. The soldiers claimed they were met with gunmen and nail bombers, while Soldier H claimed he fired at a sniper in a window. But evidence from civilian witnesses makes no mention of any paramilitary activity in the area where nine people were killed or wounded.
Bloody Sunday Inquiry ends The Bloody Sunday Inquiry has already played a part in holding to account those responsible for the shooting dead of 13 unarmed civilians, it was claimed tonight. As the tribunal judges retired to write their final report, Counsel to the Inquiry Christopher Clarke QC paid tribute to the families of the victims. "It is they who more than all others endured the pain of what happened on Bloody Sunday and its aftermath," he said. The barrister said credit must go to the families for pushing for the inquiry, which was announced in the British Parliament by Tony Blair in January 1998. The final report is expected to be given to Northern Secretary Paul Murphy next summer. Throughout more than four years, the inquiry sat for 434 days and heard evidence from 921 witnesses. In the two days of his closing submission, Mr Clarke said the tribunal could conclude from the lack of evidence from soldiers on who had shot the 27 people killed and wounded, that there was no justifiable reason for their actions. In his final remarks, he said the tribunal report would help clarify what happened, despite the difficulty of identifying the roles of individual soldiers during a civil rights march on January 30, 1972. "I hope and believe that the process itself has already played a part in enabling people to come to terms with the events of that day, in holding to account those whose decisions, actions or inaction contributed to what happened. "And whatever the difficulty of determining the roles of individual soldiers, of advancing our understanding of what happened on that day which I have no doubt will become apparent in the tribunal's report." Earlier, Mr Clarke said contradictions in military evidence could lead the tribunal to conclude there was no clear reason to enter the Glenfada Park/Abbey Park area where four civilians were killed and another five wounded. One soldier said they moved from Kells Walk into Glenfada Park North in order to cut off a group or rioters, while another said he saw two men, one who appeared to be carrying a rifle, move into the area. A third claimed he ordered the deployment in order to arrest a man who had fired a low velocity weapon from the car park at Glenfada Park. Mr Clarke said the tribunal might decide that all of these activities were taking place at the time the paras decided to move in. "Alternatively, the tribunal might conclude that the difficulties, or if they feel them so to be, the contradictions within the Anti-Tank Platoon's evidence demonstrate that there was no clear reason to enter Glenfada Park North and that various members of the platoon had fashioned their evidence to provide a retrospective justification of their movements." A number of civilian witnesses have given evidence that they saw a soldier fire at Jim Wray at point blank range as he lay on the ground in Glenfada Park. Mr Clarke left it up to the tribunal decide whether Mr Wray was shot twice while he stood or at least once after he had fallen. "If the tribunal think Mr Wray was shot once or twice as he lay on the ground, it would follow no effort has been made by the soldier or soldiers responsible to justify that fire. "The tribunal might have no difficulty in inferring that this was because there was no such justification." He also told the tribunal judges that they must decide if one of the victims had nail bombs in his possession when he was shot dead in Abbey Park. Gerard Donaghy was photographed at an Army post with four nail bombs in his pockets but a number of civilians, who tried to take him to hospital, told the tribunal he was unarmed. Mr Clarke said it was difficult to believe that all of them failed to notice Mr Donaghy had the nail bombs on him. But he also added that it was also difficult to believe that they were planted by the police or the Army, either at a barrier in Barrack Street or at the Regimental Aid Post. On the shooting dead of two men and wounding of two others at Block Two of Rossville Flats, Mr Clarke said no member of Anti-Tank Platoon had seen any soldier apart from Soldier F firing across Rossville Street, or that they recalled seeing bodies in the area. He said if the tribunal concludes that Soldier F was not the only paratrooper to fire in that area, it would follow there must have been an attempt to cover up what had happened. He pointed out that on Day 376 of proceedings, Soldier F admitted to firing the shot which hit and killed Bernard McGuigan at Block Two. The lance corporal claimed he had fired two shots at a gunman in the area. Mr Clarke said if the tribunal concluded that Soldier F did fire the shot that killed Mr McGuigan it would have to consider whether it was done accidentally.
Bloody Sunday Families hold candlelit vigil
The families and friends of those murdered and injured by the British army on Bloody Sunday held a candlelit vigil at the Bloody Sunday monument in Derry this evening. The public sessions of the Bloody Sunday Tribunal ended today in Derry following six years of testimony, legal battles, destruction of evidence by the MOD in London and continuous sniping from sections of the British press. The event was marked with a candlelight walk from the Guildhall to the Bloody Sunday memorial in Rossville St in Derry. Relatives, friends and supporters gathered for a minute's silence following a short dignified ceremony in the Bogside. Kay Duddy, interviewed during the vigil, said: "At the moment I feel very, very emotional. It's been an emotional roller-coaster all the way through". Kay, who's brother Jackie was murdered at the Rossville Flats on Bloody Sunday, continued: "Today being the final day of the actual hearings, I felt even Lord Saville was emotional today; I felt Christopher Clarke was emotional. "It's really in the lap of the Gods now." Although the Inquiry has now ended, the families are going to have to wait until next summer, at the earliest, before Lord Saville publishes the final report.
Bloody Sunday families await final report "Why and how did 13 people come to be killed and 14 to be wounded within something like ten minutes on 30 January 1972 in this city?" That was the simple question with which Christopher Clarke QC, counsel for the Inquiry, began his summing up in at the Bloody Sunday Tribunal as it sat once again this week in Derry to hear closing submissions. The question of how and why, continued Clarke, could be broken down into two key issues: which British soldier shot each victim and whether there was any justification for them doing so? He said that in framing the questions in this way, he was assuming that all 27 victims had indeed been shot by the British Army — although it has been suggested by others that three of the victims, Peggy Deery, Patsy McDaid and Alexander Nash, had not been shot by soldiers. The problem was, he said, that the evidence provided by the soldiers was "not in any way clear". It seems probable that Damien Donaghy and John Johnston were both killed by soldier A or B, Michael Kelly by F, Gerard McKinney and Gerard Donaghy by G, Kevin McIlhinney by K (a sniper), — or M and James Wray by a member of the Anti-Tank Platoon whose members, E, F, G, H, Dave Longstaff, had entered Glenfada Park. Those responsible for the remainder were, on the soldiers' evidence, unknown. Clarke said that, given this lack of clarity in their evidence, "the Tribunal may attach some significance to the fact that so much is unexplained, particularly in sectors 3, 4 and 5 into which the Anti-Tank Platoon fired. It might conclude, taking that fact with all the other evidence, that so much is unexplained because no justifiable explanation could be given." On the other hand, he said "it might take the view that uncomfortable facts have been airbrushed out of history and that the situation the soldiers faced was radically different to that of which the civilian evidence speaks". As counsel to the inquiry, Clarke's summing up offers the best clue to what conclusions Lord Saville and his colleagues are likely to reach. After his suggestion on Monday that few of the soldiers could be proved beyond reasonable doubt to have shot particular individuals, there is concern that the Tribunal will be reluctant to single out individual soldiers for blame. During his summing up, Clarke outlined the political context to the events of Bloody Sunday. He reminded the inquiry that on 7 October 1971, at the British Government GEN 47 meeting in London, "Mr Heath expressed the view that the first priority should be the defeat of the gunmen, using military means, and that in achieving this [they] should have to accept whatever political penalties were available". From that point, he said, a "a number of themes run through the documents. One is that the defeat of the gunmen is the first priority. "Another is that a purely military situation was unlikely to succeed. A third was that if there was progress in the security front on the defeat of the gunmen, there could, would or might be a window of opportunity for a political initiative at a time when the gunmen were demoralised and the Protestant community satisfied that security was being brought under control." Throughout the inquiry there have been consistent suggestions that the British Government and Army saw the Civil Rights march on 31 January 1972 as a 'window of opportunity' to take on the IRA in order to mollify the unionist administration. Clarke went on to say that the tribunal would have to consider whether the contents of General Ford's now notorious memo, written shortly before Bloody Sunday, amounted to a suggestion of a shoot-to-kill policy. The memo proceeded, he explained, "on the basis that the contemplated policy involved shooting selected ringleaders, and recognised both the devastating effects of a 7.62mm bullet, and that to use it for that purpose risked killing more than the person aimed at, and that on that account less lethal ammunition should be issued when ringleaders were engaged, and also accepts the possibility that .22 rounds may be lethal". Although there were qualifications to the proposals, "it seems difficult to escape the conclusion that what was contemplated was that shots should be fired at ringleaders which would, at the lowest, expose them to a high risk of death and probably kill at least some of them. This is underscored by the fact that soldiers are trained to shoot at the body mass; they are not taught to shoot to wound." The inquiry is due to consider final written submissions from all the parties before finally retiring to consider its conclusions. The final report is due to published next summer, although there are suggestions that it may be delayed. Bloody Sunday Tribunal statistics: • The Tribunal was established in April 1998
The Beginning Of The End On Sunday, January 30, 1972, one of the worst atrocities of the 'Troubles' happened on the streets of Derry, when thirteen unarmed, innocent civilians were murdered by members of the First Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Over the intervening 32 years, the families of those killed, as well as those who were wounded, have had to endure not only their bereavements but also scandalous accusations that they were not all innocent. The now discredited Widgery Inquiry even insinuated that some of the dead might have been carrying guns and bombs; it also came to the scandalous conclusion that the soldiers concerned were blameless. It would have suited the British establishment to allow Widgery's charade to stand as the definitive verdict. But the dead men's families battled against obstruction of all kinds, and refused to allow this travesty of justice to be the last word. At times it seemed that, despite ceaseless efforts, the search for the truth and nothing but the truth of what happened would never be reactivated. But persistence paid off, and in the end the British were forced to reopen the issue by establishing the Saville Inquiry. Six and a half years on, and more than 900 witnesses later, Lord Saville and his two colleagues have at long last retired to write their final report. One of the most striking features of the Inquiry proceedings was the extent of the conflict between the evidence of British Army witnesses, on the one side, and that of civilians and journalists on the other. Broadly speaking, it would be fair to say that the vast majority of evidence from civilians and journalists pointed to the army opening fire on unarmed civilians in circumstances where the lives of soldiers were not seriously threatened. Conversely, however, the evidence from Army sources was largely to the effect that a legitimate and necessary decision was taken to carry out an arrest operation against rioters, and that individual soldiers opened fire only where they had identified a gunman or bomber who was threatening their lives or the lives of their comrades. Indeed, the fundamental task of the Saville tribunal is to determine objectively and authoritatively where the truth lies among these dramatically conflicting versions. The truth of Bloody Sunday, however, is known to the people of Derry. It is something we have known for 32 years. It was a massacre carried out in broad daylight in full view of hundreds of eyewitnesses, including scores of independent media witnesses. Irish people, North and South, have known for years that unarmed civil rights demonstrators were murdered in cold blood by British paratroopers. Yet, at the highest level of the British political and judicial establishments a crude cover up was concocted. This cover-up, conspiracy of silence, call it what you will, continues to this day. One only had to listen to the "evidence" of successive military witnesses at the Saville hearings for confirmation of this. Indeed, at times, one could only marvel at the testimony of some of the soldiers which, in a number of cases, reached the realms of absolute fantasy. It is no exaggeration to say that the soldiers' evidence frequently appeared to be treating the people of this city and the events of Bloody Sunday as something of a joke. Spurious and inconsistent evidence by soldiers only made the task of the Inquiry even longer and indeed more painful and insulting to the families of the dead, those injured, and everyone who went through the trauma of that day. The people of Derry, knowing the hurt that Bloody Sunday caused, trust that Lord Saville and his team will robustly discredit such outrageous evidence. The facts boiled down to the simplest level are that 13 unarmed civilians were shot dead by the so-called elite of the British military. The families of the dead and wounded are not seeking recrimination, simply the truth about what happened on January 30, 1972. Their concern is to establish the truth and to close this painful chapter once and for all. Indeed, one can't help but be struck by the dignity of the families in their quest for the truth. At times it may be hard and at times it may be harsh, but the truth always provides the basis upon that which is bad can be remedied and that which is good can be made better. It is said that "truth is the first casualty of war". By the same token, as we emerge from conflict, establishment of truth, thereby ridding society of past-through-to-present injustices, should become a hallmark of a new society. Thirty-two years on, the relatives of those innocent men gunned down on Bloody Sunday, backed by the people of Derry, remain steadfast in their demands: we simply want truth, justice, and most important of all, closure. We can only hope that justice, at whatever level, will prevail.
Jailing of Derry Republican a Disgrace A Derry republican was sentenced to three months in jail today for contempt of the Bloody Sunday inquiry by refusing to attend and give evidence. When the sentence was handed down in the High Court in Belfast, the 54-year-old republican, known as PIRA 9, stood up and shouted at the two judges: "I'm the only man to be punished for Bloody Sunday. It's a disgrace." The north's Lord Chief Justice Sir Brian Kerr, sitting with Lord Justice Campbell, said the order for committal to prison would become effective no later than 12 noon on Monday. The application to punish the man for contempt of the tribual was brought on behalf of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry chairman, Lord Saville. His lawyer Bernard McCloskey, QC, said PIRA 9's refusal to obey the inquiry's subpoena was blatant. The Inquiry had received evidence from Paddy Ward that the man had been actively involved in the events of Bloody Sunday on January 31, 1972, when paratroopers shot 27 civil rights marchers, killing 14 of them. Defence lawyer John Coyle referred to a letter written to the inquiry by solicitor Denis Mullan quoting PIRA 9 as saying that Mr Ward's evidence contained such a degree of inaccuracy that it did not merit the dignity of a response from him. Said Mr Coyle: "His view is that the evidence was nonsense - a farrago of falsehoods." The Lord Chief Justice said the court was concerned about having to send a person to jail with no previous convictions and adjourned the hearing to allow PIRA 9 to reconsider his position. When the hearing resumed, Mr Coyle said: "My client's attitude is unaltered. He has strong political principles and does not wish to avail of the opportunity offered to him." Sinn Féin MLA, Raymond Mc Cartney described the sentencing as an absolute disgrace. Mr Mc Cartney said: “The fact that the Derry Republican sentenced in Belfast today for refusing to appear before the Saville Inquiry is the only person to be imprisoned as a result of the events in Derry in 1972 is an absolute disgrace. “This person took a conscious decision that the Saville Inquiry as set up by a British government would not serve the best interests of the families of the Bloody Sunday victims or the general population of Derry. As an individual he is entitled to his opinion. "If the British judicial system had pursued those responsible for the murder and mayhem that occurred on the streets of Derry on 30th January 1972 with the same determination as that applied to prosecuting this person then we would not have had the need for the Saville Inquiry. “As far as the people of Derry are concerned those that treated the Bloody Sunday Inquiry with contempt were the British government and its agencies in their continued refusal to furnish Saville with all relevant material in their possession.” John Kelly, who's 17-year-old brother, Michael, was murdered by the British Army on Bloody Sunday said it was a "scandal". Mr Kelly pointed out that many witnesses had refused to answer the Inquiry's questions - and one former member of the Parachute Regiment blatantly refused to enter the witness box at all. He said although the families had always appealed to everyone with information to come forward, it was wrong to send a man to prison for failing to do so. Mr Kelly stated: "The fact is that a Derry man is going to jail over Bloody Sunday, in spite of the way some British politicians and former soldiers treated the tribunal."
Time hasn't dimmed the demand for the truth As John Kelly, whose brother Michael was murdered on Bloody Sunday, stood before the 10,000 people who had gathered at Free Derry Corner to mark the 33rd anniversary of the killings, he began his address with three simple sentences that eloquently summed up the pain and injustice he and his family have had to suffer since 1972. "My brother Michael was murdered by Soldier F," he said. "For the past 32 years I have been forced to live with the fact that his killer is considered heroic, an honoured servant of the Crown, and that his commanding officer was decorated ten months later by the British head of state, Queen Elizabeth the Second. Time hasn't changed any of these realities." But there is, he said, another reality which has gone unacknowledged by the British state in its eagerness to laud members of the Parachute Regiment; the genuine heroism of those who took part in the march for civil rights on 30 January 1972. "Those killed and injured were ordinary people who stood for justice and civil rights for all but whose demands could not be tolerated by London, by the Unionist government in Stormont, by the British Army and by the RUC." Unlike their killers, those who died were not decorated, he said. "Instead, their names and faces were flashed around the world as gunmen and bombers." Speaking about the Saville Inquiry, he said that the process had been an extremely difficult one for the families. It had been "traumatising, and at times exhausting". And although there was some sense of achievement for the families, there was still "the bitterness and injustice usually associated with the British judicial system and the Irish people". Especially difficult, he said, was the fact that "many of the families for the first time came face to face with the planners, the commanders and executioners of our loved ones and whilst this was a necessary part of the inquiry process, it was probably the most difficult. We again bore witness to the lies, the pretence and the arrogance which encapsulated the outcome of the first inquiry in 1972." Call for Doherty release He also spoke about the collective outrage amongst the Bloody Sunday families over the imprisonment of Martin 'Ducksie' Doherty, and called on the British Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, to order his immediate release. Doherty, a local republican, was convicted last month for refusing to appear before the Saville Inquiry to answer questions about Bloody Sunday, despite his statement that he was not present on the day. The sentence imposed on Doherty, said John Kelly, was "perpetration of the injustice. It is shameful and a sheer disgrace which has stained the integrity of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Thousands of witnesses questioned, millions of pounds spent, prime ministers and the elite of the British establishment proven as liars, and the outcome so far? One Derry man imprisoned." He said there were some fundamental questions that will need to be answered in Lord Saville's report: "Does the Inquiry accept that the 14 men and boys were actually murdered and that they, and all those wounded by gunfire on that day, are innocent of charges of being gunmen and bombers? Who murdered them, and who gave the order that they be murdered? What is the legal status of any finding of murder, manslaughter or the wholesale use of torture and degrading treatment on civilians taken prisoner on that day? Above all, will the current British Government acknowledge and accept responsibility for the actions of its army on Bloody Sunday?" With John Kelly on the platform were Sinn Féin Chairman, Mitchel McLaughlin MLA, Dr Jamal Zahalka, a Palestinian member of the Israeli Knesset, Dominic Bradley MLA of the SDLP and the daughter of John Davey, the Magherafelt Sinn Féin Councillor murdered in 1989 by loyalists as he returned home from a council meeting. Palestinian solidarity Dr Zahalka, acknowledging that the famous Free Derry Corner mural had been painted in the colours of the Palestinian flag for the duration of the Bloody Sunday commemoration said: "We look forward to the day when we destroy the great wall of apartheid built in Palestine and build a new, small wall which has written on it 'You are Now Entering Free Palestine'." He spoke about the Palestinian Bloody Sunday, in October 2000, when Israeli police killed 14 unarmed demonstrators and about the disturbing similarities with the events in Derry in 1972. "In both cases, demonstrators were not treated as citizens but as enemies; in both cases no one from the security forces was punished for the murders," he said. "The questions we are asking and the questions you are asking are the same: why did it happen? Who carried out the shooting? Who gave the orders? Who directed them? From how far up the chain of command did the orders originate? Where did it fit into political policy? We know the truth, as you know the truth, but both of us want them to admit it." Sinn Féin Chair Mitchel McLaughlin recalled that he had been present on Bloody Sunday when the Parachute Regiment had been unleashed on the citizens of Derry in order to teach them a lesson. That lesson, he said, was "to teach uppity Fenians that failure to obey British law would have dire consequences". As well as the dead and injured, he said, truth was also a casualty of the events of 30 January 1972, "and the denial of truth is the denial of justice". "The intention was to teach us a harsh lesson, and indeed we were taught a lesson that day. Actually we learned a number of lessons. As we began to count and identify our dead and wounded, the British Government was already telling the world that a gun battle had erupted in the republican stronghold of the Bogside and that a number of republican gunmen and bombers had been killed". A compliant media, he continued, perpetuated and spread the lie. "No need for evidence as, after all, only the IRA could mount such an assault on the British Army and only the 'superior fieldcraft' of the British Army saved them from injury or worse. No need then for doubts, no need for questions. Lessons learned "Yes, we learned lessons that day, but not the ones which were intended. Because we emerged even stronger and even more determined. We learned that our oppressors owned the law and they owned substantial and influential sections of the communications and media industry. "We learned that when the lawmakers are also the lawbreakers, then there is no law. We also learned that there will be an official version of every single event, which is reported in the media, and then there is the truth. That is why we are here today, not just demanding freedom for Ducksie Doherty, we are also demanding that the truth be set free, the truth about Bloody Sunday." Referring to the theme of the commemorative weekend, Time for Truth: From Bogside to Basra, McLaughlin said that the truths leaned in Derry as a result of Bloody Sunday were equally applicable in Palestine and in Baghdad and Basra. Since 1972, he added, human rights had been further eroded by governments both in Ireland and in other places of conflict. "The current, most graphic illustrations of this are witnessed on a daily basis in Palestine and Iraq," he said. "We hear personal accounts about human rights abuses and torture in Belmarsh Prison and Guantanamo Bay". But, he said, in the search for justice for those who were murdered on Bloody Sunday, "we must not be deterred by a political establishment that pays lip service to democracy whilst playing fast and loose with human rights, with civil liberties and the truth".
Saville verdict may take another year Publication of the Saville Inquiry's report into Bloody Sunday could be delayed until next year, the Irish News has learned. At the close of public hearings last October, it was accepted that the final report would be released sometime this summer. But sources have now indicated that it could be delayed until 2006 because of the quantity of material to be reviewed by Lord Saville, Mr Justice John Toohey and Mr Justice William Hoyt. A spokeswoman for the inquiry last night declined to comment on the date for the report. “The report is in preparation. However, it is necessary for the tribunal to look at a very large quantity of material, so it is not possible at this stage to give any final estimation of when the report may be published,” she said. If delayed until next year, the final report will be published a full eight years after Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the establishment of the tribunal in 1998. It heard its first witnesses in March 2000. John Kelly, a brother of Bloody Sunday victim Michael Kelly, said he was not surprised that publication could be put back until next year. “I had hoped it would be published by September of this year, but I am not surprised. We have waited 33 years for this so another few months won't matter,” he said. Mr Kelly said the truth of what happened on Bloody Sunday had already been revealed through the evidence of the last five years. He said the Bloody Sunday families now sought “confirmation of that truth” from the tribunal, and also the British government to admit the truth. Derry lawyer Greg McCartney, who represents the family of victim Jim Wray, also said the expected delay came as no surprise given the huge quantity of material involved. Meanwhile, Paul Greengrass – director of the film Bloody Sunday, one of two about the 1972 killings – has been celebrating receiving a Bafta. He won the television award for his work on films about Bloody Sunday, the 1998 Omagh bombings and the Stephen Lawrence inquiry in Britain among others.
'Sunday' Rifles Discovery 'Deeply Disturbing' - Says Victim's Brother A relative of a teenager gunned down on Bloody Sunday has branded as "deeply disturbing" revelations that rifles fired by soldiers in Derry that fateful day have been found - despite claims they had been destroyed. It emerged at the weekend that three British Army weapons used to shoot unarmed civilians in Derry's Bogside on January 30, 1972 have been recovered in Beirut, the United States and Sierra Leone. It was earlier this year that it was revealed one of the weapons used by paratroopers in Derry was uncovered in Sierra Leone. It has now been confirmed that two other weapons have turned up in a police station in Beirut and in a gun shop in Little Rock, Arkansas. John Kelly, whose brother Michael (17) was among those gunned down on Bloody Sunday, said he found the revelations "deeply disturbing." He said he suspected the "hand of the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) at work." "Nothing surprises me when it comes to the MoD," said Mr. Kelly. "They have, at every turn, tried to disrupt and mislead the quest for truth and justice surrounding Bloody Sunday. "The story as regards the guns used on Bloody Sunday has changed on so many occasions that it's hard to be surprised any more. "However, what is deeply disturbing is the distinct possibility that guns used to murder innocent people in Derry may well have subsequently been used for other murderous acts." In September 1999, the Saville Inquiry was informed that 14 of the 29 rifles used on Bloody Sunday - which were submitted to the original Widgery Inquiry - had been destroyed when self-loading rifles (SLRs) became obsolete in 1997. The Inquiry was told ten rifles had been sold. The inquiry immediately placed an order banning the movement of the remaining five rifles but three months later it emerged that a further two had been destroyed. Details and serial numbers of 29 SLRs used by the solders were identified by the Inquiry as they had been originally submitted by the army for forensic testing to the 1972 Widgery Inquiry. However, Lord Saville wanted to re-examine the guns in the hope that modern forensic methods might produce fresh clues as to which soldier shot which civilian. In particular, the Inquiry wanted to establish if any of the SLRs had been adapted to fire lower-calibre .22 rounds. Major General Robert Ford, the British Army's second-in-command in the North in 1972, had recommended in a top secret report that marksmen be allowed to shoot dead troublemakers with rifles altered to fire less powerful bullets. The tribunal wanted to test if this had been put into effect on Bloody Sunday when Kevin McElhinney, one of those killed, appeared to have been shot with a .22 bullet. Many of the weapons used on Bloody were disposed of just days before the Inquiry started on January 29, 1998 with some melted down for scrap metal and others sold to international dealers.
Bloody Sunday rifles - new revelations: The long-smouldering row about the guns used by the Parachute Regiment to kill 14 people in Derry on Bloody Sunday has re-ignited once again with new claims in the Sunday Times about the fate of the weapons. The latest revelations centre on the activities of employees at a British Army storage facility at Donnington, Shropshire; the disappearance of all but five of 29 Bloody Sunday guns originally held in Building 54 of the facility; and the claims by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that the other 24 were destroyed. The disappearance of the guns and the destruction of two of the five remaining rifles held at Donnington has been known about for some time, but the latest article also recounts the police inquiry, codenamed "Operation Apollo" which followed. The investigation uncovered an audit trail revealing that some of the weapons, including some which the MoD told the Saville Inquiry had been destroyed, were actually sold off, travelling through Beirut, Belgium, Canada with at least one ending up in the possession of the rebel group, the West Side Boys, in Sierra Leone. Of a list of 60 possible rifles which Apollo detectives wanted to trace, 14 have now been recovered. The article points the finger of responsibility at employees at Donnington. It relates how officers from the West Mercia Constabulary encountered "a degree of contempt and resistance" during their investigations and how they found one message which said that "on Tuesday, the Battle of Hastings inquiry will want to find the longbow which put Harold's eye out". However, while the Apollo report commented that it was "almost beyond belief" that the five remaining guns at Donnington were not protected once they had been identified and Saville had requested they be handed over, and that "No member of staff has been able to provide a convincing explanation" for the subsequent destruction of two of them, officers decided that there had been no conspiracy to conceal evidence from Saville. "What occurred was a combination of mistakes, human errors and negligence," it says. John Kelly, whose brother Michael was killed on Bloody Sunday, disagrees with this conclusion. Speaking to An Phoblacht he said that it is now "beyond any doubt whatsoever that there was a conspiracy by the MoD to cover up". "I certainly do not accept that it is just the responsibility of one or two obstructive individuals at Donnington as the article seems to suggest. They were told to do a job - to hide or destroy the evidence - and they did it. Don't forget, the article mentions that one of them received a £100 bonus for the work he did in disposing of evidence. "I believe this goes all the way up the chain of command at the MoD. I would be very surprised if Geoff Hoon [the then British Government Secretary of Defence] knew nothing about this, or did not have a hand in it somewhere". Kelly also argues that it is no coincidence that the two rifles destroyed after having been requested by the Inquiry were those used by Soldiers F and G. "Soldier F murdered my brother Michael," he said, "and Soldier G killed Gerard Donaghy. Those rifles contained vital evidence in both of those cases and they were deliberately destroyed by the MoD. Now that evidence has been lost." He is also deeply concerned about the possible loss of one or more weapons which may have been modified in accordance with recommendations made by the British Army commander Major General Robert Ford shortly before Bloody Sunday. In a secret memo, Ford had suggested that the army modify some of its SLRs to fire .22 rounds, rather than the standard 7.62 ammunition, as the latter often caused additional injury or death to others than the intended target. With .22 rounds, Ford said, "known troublemakers" and rioters could be killed without incurring collateral damage. It is known that 30 of these modified rifles were sent to the Six Counties. Throughout the inquiry, the MoD and British Army denied that this recommendation had been put into practice, but there is strong forensic evidence that Kevin McElhinny was killed with such a round. There is, fortuitously for the MoD, no trace of the gun. John Kelly said that it was clear that the MoD never had any intention of co-operating with the Inquiry. "They have stuck two fingers up at Saville, who I believe has tried to do a decent job in recovering the rifles." The issue of a Bloody Sunday gun recovered by the Parachute Regiment in a gun battle with the West Side Boys in 2000 has also arisen before. Earlier this year former Irish Guards Colonel, Tim Collins, who was involved in the British Army operation in Sierra Leone, wrote in his book of the captured gun: "It was only when they were back to the UK that it was discovered from the serial numbers that one of the rifles was actually an old 1 Para rifle. It was used on Bloody Sunday in Londonderry in 1972 when 13 protestors had been shot — and it had been declared destroyed when the Saville Inquiry into the shootings had asked for it." Kelly says the Bloody Sunday families want to see Collins brought before the Saville Inquiry. "There are a lot of questions to be asked of Collins," he says. "For example, we want to know why, if he had this information, did he not come forward with it and make a statement. If he knew all along that the Paras had one of the guns, he should have volunteered that information to the Inquiry. Also, where is that rifle now? Why hasn't it been handed over to the Inquiry? These questions have to be answered". "Remember that a Derry man was jailed for not appearing before the Inquiry, even though he had no information. Collins must be made to give evidence." And, says Kelly: "It begs the question about all of the guns used on Bloody Sunday. Was the MoD telling the truth about any of them? How many of them were actually sold off abroad to be used in other killings? Are some of them still hidden away?"
Speculation growing that Bloody Sunday report On January 29, 1998, the now embattled British prime minister Tony Blair made a statement in the House of Commons announcing the second probe into Bloody Sunday to be headed by Lord Saville of Newdigate into the massacre carried out by members of the elite Parachute Regiment in Derry’s Bogside 26 years earlier. The circumstances of the killings are well known. Thirteen unarmed civilians – a fourteenth died later – were shot dead. The first probe, headed by the late Lord Widgery, was widely regarded as a “whitewash”, largely exonerating members of 1 Para of wrongdoing on January 30, 1972. In 2006, the families of the dead and those wounded on Bloody Sunday still await the publication of the findings of the Saville inquiry. The inquiry was set up to assess “new evidence that was not available to Lord Widgery”. Its terms of reference were to inquire into “the events of Sunday 30th January in 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day, taking into account any new information relevant to events on that day”. The extensive inquiry interviewed and received statements from approximately 2,500 people. Some 921 of these people were called to give evidence in Derry’s Guildhall. It was the largest undertaking in British legal history. The judges, headed by Lord Saville, retired two years ago. There is unease among families and the nationalist population in Derry about the reasons for the delay. “Where the state’s own authorities are concerned, we must be as sure as we can of the truth,” Tony Blair said in 1998. Today he is preoccupied. The official line from the Bloody Sunday Inquiry since the winding up of hearings in Derry and Central Hall Westminster has been that the huge amount of evidence is responsible for the delay. There is no doubt about the weight of the evidence, but the legions of solicitors and barristers and legal teams employed, including the three-man tribunal panel have still not delivered the final report. On April 3, 1998, Lord Saville issued the opening statement of the Inquiry. The object and duty of the inquiry was “to seek the truth about what happened on Bloody Sunday. We intend to carry out that duty with fairness, thoroughness and impartiality”. The final report, when published, will first land on the desk of direct-rule secretary, Peter Hain. With the North’s political process in logjam and British paratroopers and troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the question in people’s minds is: is this report deliberately being held back? It would neither be politically expedient, nor morale boosting for British troops to be slammed – as the Saville inquiry will undoubtedly do – while British forces are involved in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the families of the Bloody Sunday dead, and those wounded, are condemned to a waiting game – something they have become accustomed to over decades. The last press notice was issued by the inquiry almost a year ago. It stated that those affected by Bloody Sunday – the families and the civilians of Derry who joined the Civil Rights march on that day – would be given substantial notice of the publication of the report. Derry anti-war campaigner and veteran socialist campaigner Eamonn McCann, who was present on the Bloody Sunday civil rights march, said that the contents of the final report are likely to be embarrassing for the British government and army. Throughout the Troubles, he said, the British government portrayed itself as a “referee” in a sectarian conflict. “This was a very British atrocity,” said McCann. “Bloody Sunday, much as they would like it to, does not fit into the pattern of other killings, such as the Enniskillen bomb, Teebane, etc. “This report, when it is published will show the extent to which the British were major players in the conflict in the North and not referees. “The problem on Bloody Sunday was the murderous attitude of the paras – and this is a complication, a potential embarrassment and scandal for the British government.” Derry MLA Raymond McCartney urged inquiry chairman Lord Saville to address the families to end speculation that the findings of the probe into the killings may be stalled for political reasons. He said: “In the absence of Lord Saville addressing the families, there will be growing speculation that this report is being delayed for political reasons. “The families have had no correspondence and some explanation of the delay is needed.” SDLP MLA Pat Ramsey said that deep psychological wounds in Derry caused by the killings cannot begin to be healed without the publication of the Saville report. “There is much anticipation across this city about the Inquiry and its findings. “People are anxious to hear the findings and for the families, it may give peace of mind,” he said. “People would hope that there are no political reasons behind this delay.”
Lord Saville, why are we waiting? Editorial The families of the victims of the Bloody Sunday massacre, along with the rest of the country and people interested in justice around the world, are still waiting for the truth, 34 years after British soldiers shot dead 14 unarmed people in Derry and severely wounded many others. The relatives are calling on the chairman of the latest inquiry into the killings, Lord Saville of Newdigate, to tell them why the investigation’s report is taking so long to publish. There is still no timetable for the publication of the report, two years after the long-running inquiry involving hundreds of witnesses and a battery of lawyers and barristers concluded. Even after it does make its appearance, its first stop will be the desk of direct-rule secretary Peter Hain. where it will presumably be pored over once again before the public is deemed mature enough to finally read it for themselves. The fear among the families and other interested parties is that the current British government, aware of the damning findings of the Saville inquiry, which is thought to blame the paratroopers in Derry on the fateful day for gunning down innocent people, is seeking to minimise the effect on its public and its military, by delaying its release or seeking to water down its conclusions. Interested parties fear this may be partly because of the situation Britain under an increasingly embattled Tony Blair finds itself in in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also because of the unpalatable truth that their vaunted soldiers ran amok on Bloody Sunday, and possibly proof of the even more devastating suspicion, that they were allowed and encouraged to, as part of a strategy emanating from the very top. This would totally destroy the myth that Britain was only ever acting as an impartial referee in Ireland, a stance it likes to portray itself as having around the world, a position now largely in tatters a a result of the recent revelations on collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. Given the initial Widgery Report’s findings into Bloody Sunday, slammed at the time as a British government whitewash and now generally accepted as such, it’s essential that people are reassured that there is no attempt at damage control being attempted in this instance. The Bloody Sunday families have waited decades for a proper and public inquiry and now, two years since the end of the probe, are still waiting to see its report and at last, hopefully, learn the truth of what happened on that tragic day. It’s time for Lord Saville to speak out and tell the families, and the rest of us, why it’s taking so long to reveal the findings of his inquiry, and reassure them that its conclusions are not being tampered with to perpetuate the official myths of Bloody Sunday.
Jackson Admits British Troops Killed Innocent People on Bloody Sunday The former head of the British army has admitted for the first time that troops shot dead innocent people on Bloody Sunday. Former chief of the general staff General Sir Mike Jackson will tonight admit on a BBC Spotlight programme that troops killed innocent people when they opened fire on unarmed civilians taking part in a civil rights march in Derry's Bogside on January 30th 1972. Jackson, who served in the six counties for seven years and was a captain with the British parachute regiment on the day, admits he now has no doubt that innocent people were shot. For more than 30 years he had claimed that those killed on Bloody Sunday had been members of the IRA. Questioned when he had come to the conclusion that his troops had killed innocent people, he said: "I'm not sure, I don't think I can really give you a sense (of) that. It's over time." He said people must wait for the outcome of the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday before drawing any conclusions. The tribunal investigated the deaths of the14 civilians shot dead by the British soldiers. It was established in 1998 by British Prime Minister Tony Blair after a lengthy campaign by families of those killed and injured. Its findings will not be published until at least the end of 2008. "I have no doubt that innocent people were shot," Jackson said. "We have had two formal judicial inquiries, one of which is yet to report. There has been many journalistic examinations of what happened. (The) Saville Inquiry has been somewhat lengthy, but my goodness it has been thorough, and we will see what it has to say." Liam Wray, whose brother Jim was one of the 14 civilians shot dead on Bloody Sunday, said he welcomed Jackson's admission. "I think it's significant that the retired top soldier in the British army has come to the point in time where he is accepting that innocent people were shot on Bloody Sunday," he said. "It is regrettable that he didn't give that evidence to the Widgery Inquiry in 1972." Jackson also admits for the first time that the Falls Road Curfew had been a "mistake". More than 3,000 British soldiers sealed-off the lower Falls in west Belfast in July 1971 in what they claimed was a search for IRA weapons. However, the searches led to three days of gun battles and rioting which left 5 people dead and 60 people injured. The curfew was a key incident in turning the nationalist community against the British army. Recalling the event, Jackson said: "With retrospect it may have been too heavy-handed an approach at the time." Asked whether he now regarded it as a mistake, he said: "Looking back now, yes. "Again you can't be black and white about these things but I think you know the balance of advantage and disadvantage of taking that action with hindsight, and we can all be clever with that, I think the disadvantages of that outweigh the advantages." In what is thought to be the first time he has admitted that the British army could not have defeated the IRA, he says: "You can't see it in simplistic military 'side A beats side B' because I think it's true to say that the military dimension – I put that in inverted commas – the military dimension of the campaign could have gone on indefinitely with neither side gaining what might be perceived as some sort of conventional military victory. "I go back to my original premise – the source of the problem is political, therefore the solution is political." Jackson was one of a number of former British soldiers interviewed to mark the end of the British army's 'Operation Banner' on July 31st. The operation provided back-up for the RUC and PSNI for more than 30 years.
Bloody Sunday: 'We don't care about cost. We want justice' Interview by Cole Moreton Relatives of the dead have been told a report is imminent. But after 10 years and £174m, Lord Saville is still taking statements On a shelf in a glass case, in a room in the Bogside area of Derry, there is a yellowing cotton Babygro covered in brown blotches. The stains were made by the blood of Michael Kelly, a 17-year-old boy who was shot dead in the street just outside. "We carried him into a house," recalls his brother John, still angry and grieving 36 years later. "The woman there grabbed anything she could to try and stop the flow of blood." She pressed the Baby-gro against a bleeding wound caused by a bullet from a gun fired by a member of the British Army. It was 30 January 1972, a day that would become notorious as Bloody Sunday. Michael Kelly and a dozen others died when soldiers from the Parachute Regiment opened fire on a civil rights march. "They were supposed to uphold law and order and protect us," says his brother, "but they turned their guns on us." The Bloody Sunday inquiry into exactly what happened that day will soon have been going for 10 years. It is the second inquiry, the first having been a rush job that outraged many and satisfied none. Lord Saville of Newdigate has overseen the longest-running and most expensive investigation of its kind in British legal history, at a cost – so far – of more than £174m. When Tony Blair, the new Prime Minister, announced the inquiry on 29 January 1998, he hoped it would give the relatives of those who died "closure". But what does that mean? What would satisfy them? And when is it coming? Soon, according to Lord Saville, who recently told the families to expect a "voluminous" report only "a matter of months" into 2008. That may now be May or June, as this paper has learned that a fresh statement was taken from a witness just last month. It has led to fears that Lord Saville might not be about to give the relatives what they want: an official declaration that every one of the 14 people killed by the Paras was an innocent victim. "They were not gunmen or bombers," insists John Kelly. Tony Blair and his predecessor, John Major, have already agreed that Lord Widgery – who led the first inquiry – was wrong to suggest that some of the victims may have been armed. They "should be regarded as innocent of any allegation that they were shot while handling firearms or explosives", Mr Blair said a decade ago. But that was far too ambiguous and not nearly official enough for Mr Kelly and the other relatives. Crucially, they are waiting to hear what Lord Saville says about Gerard Donaghy. This 17-year-old member of Fianna Eireann, a Republican youth movement linked to the IRA, was the only casualty with such an affiliation. The inquiry saw police photographs of the body at a medical centre that showed nail bombs sticking out of his pockets – but it also heard from the soldier who took him to the centre and saw no bombs at all. "The bombs were planted," insists Mr Kelly. At best, Lord Saville will say that is probably true. He and two fellow lords have heard from 900 witnesses and read thousands of statements, the most recent being directly about Donaghy, but they are still mostly dealing in probabilities. So at worst (for Mr Kelly), the report will say the boy was probably carrying bombs. The close-knit band of relatives and campaigners will see that as a betrayal of the truth – and no doubt some will change their minds about it having been a huge waste of money. By the end of the legal proceedings in 2005 the fees stood at £92m. Individual lawyers made fortunes: Sir Christopher Clarke earned £4.5m acting for the inquiry; Edwin Glasgow QC, representing the military, got £4m. Another 30 barristers or QCs made more than half a million each. Hotels, bars and restaurants in Derry (as the city council calls the place also known as Londonderry) did well out of the hearings before they moved to London, but Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, still called the inquiry "a huge money-sucking venture". Unionists opposed it from the start. Supporters of the Army called it "a shameful pillory". The Conservatives called the bill "scandalous". They have an unlikely ally in Eamonn McCann, the writer and political activist who helped to organise the original march and now chairs the Bloody Sunday Trust. "The cost is outrageous," he agrees. "There was a feeding frenzy by lawyers. Some were getting £2,000 a day, some more than that. It is indefensible that a crime perpetrated against working-class people should have the consequence of making millionaires out of people who were already quite well off." Yet Mr McCann insists Lord Saville was right to take his time: "It is perfectly possible to be outraged by the cost of the tribunal but still want the truth about what happened on Bloody Sunday to be pursued with all vigour. That's my position." If so, why not hold similar inquiries into attacks such as the Omagh bombing, for example? Mr McCann, who lives in the Bogside, believes Bloody Sunday is different. "All the other atrocities can be put down to the clash between communities. This was the state murdering its citizens in broad daylight. "It wasn't a bomb on a lonely road, or something planted in the night: it was in a built-up area on a bright winter's afternoon, where there were thousands of people." There were about 15,000 on the march. "Every single killing was witnessed by many people – some at close range. I saw people die – and so did someone from every family in this street. That's why the tribunal has taken so long: there are so many witnesses." The respected former Northern Ireland Ombudsman Dr Maurice Hayes said in Derry last year: "I do not believe that the Saville inquiry will unearth the essential truth, the definitive account of the events on Bloody Sunday, which are so deeply incised on the psyche of this city. I can think of many better things to do for the families of victims and survivors for £200m." But Mr Kelly, a quietly spoken man who often teaches schoolchildren about Bloody Sunday, just laughs at the suggestion that the city could have been transformed. "Derry wouldn't have got the money would it? It would have gone somewhere else. They've wasted far more in Iraq." What about giving each of the families a million or two in compensation – wouldn't that have been quicker and cheaper? "I would look upon it as blood money," he says, shaking his head. "This is not about money." The costs have been "astronomical", he agrees, "but I don't care. I never did care how much it was going to cost. You cannot put a price on a human life, or on the search for justice." What would justice be? "I want to see the man who killed my brother go to prison." Lord Saville cannot make that happen. He can only lay out in detail what happened that day – much as the Museum of Free Derry has done, to its own interpretation, on the Bogside where Mr Kelly works. It was opened last year by the former Guantánamo Bay internee Moazzem Begg, part-financed by a law firm that profited from the inquiry. A real-time audio recording of the day sends shrieks and screams through the room. In one glass case lies a crumpled brown corduroy jacket marked with two yellow labels put on it during the inquiry to show where bullets entered the back of James Wray, 22. Close by is that Babygro. "My mother asked for all Michael's things to go in the coffin with her when she died," says Mr Kelly. "Some things got away. I have a Mars bar at home that is 36 years old. It was his. And there's this. That's his blood." Michael had been in a coma as a child, and his mother was very protective. She had to be persuaded to let him march, protesting at the internment of prisoners without trial. "She followed the march to keep an eye on him," says Mr Kelly. "Then she lost sight of him." Many marchers turned away when confronted by the Paras but some stayed to hurl stones and insults. The soldiers used CS gas, then began to advance towards Free Derry, the nationalist area just below the historic city walls that had declared itself a no-go area for the authorities. Shots were heard. Did the Paras fire first or respond to an IRA gunman? Lord Saville is expected to provide an answer. Either way, 13 people were killed that day and another died later from his wounds. Seven were teenagers. "The sound of the bullets whizzing past is still in my head," says Mr Kelly, who ran through the streets to find his brother. Michael was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. "I remember my father sliding down the wall when we told him. My mother went into total hysterics." She went to pieces. "For years she didn't even know who she was herself. We found her going to the cemetery on one snowy day with a blanket to keep him warm." Many relatives say they will stop campaigning after Saville, whatever he says. But can anything in the report make John Kelly do that? "No. I want Soldier F prosecuted for the murder of my brother." The blurry image of the soldier, identity withheld at the inquiry, appears on a poster at the museum. "The bullet retrieved from Michael's body was traced back to his rifle. He's a multi-killer who took the lives of four people that day." He hopes the report will lead to criminal charges. "I had black hair, now it's white. I want to move on with my life. Once F is prosecuted, then I can get closure." And if not? If the report is all that the families hope for, but still does not lead to anyone being charged, what then? Mr Kelly smiles at the absurdity of what he is about to say, because he knows that in the 10 long and costly years of the Bloody Sunday inquiry there has only ever been – and only ever will be – one set of real winners. "We'll have to discuss that with our lawyers."
'I smelt the fear and tasted the ache that still hurts today' Eddie Kerr After 36 years of denials add the shirking of responsibility and mix that up with vivid nightmares and flashbacks in grainy black and white footage then Bloody Sunday haunts us continually. And still we wait for closure. Still the Inquiry team trawl through 432 days of oral testimony from more than 920 witnesses and thousands of written statements detailed in eyewitness testimonies. And still no closure as we wait some more. Then after decades of official lies, secrets, suppressed information, evidence destroyed and persistent perjury and lies; closure seems as far away as ever. £170 million in costs and the name of being the longest inquiry in legal history and still we continue to wait. There was oral evidence offered by 245 soldiers, 34 paramilitaries, 505 civilians, 49 journalists, and seven priests. Evidence included 121 audiotapes, 109 videotapes and 13 volumes of photographs. 14 million words were spoken at the inquiry. A mountain mass of words, images and pain And to top it off after ten years in the waiting since the Saville Inquiry commenced, we continue to wait some more. Yet still the truth of Bloody Sunday awaits to see the light of the day. They say the truth is out there. I can tell you that the truth is here and has been here. I don't need any British Judge to tell me what happened - I was there. I saw what happened. I smelt the fear and tasted the ache that still hurts today. And no amount of prevarication will alter the reality of that day. To add insult to mass injury, only one person has spent time in prison for the events on that never-to-be-forgotten day. That one person was an innocent Derryman, while top politicians, high ranking soldiers, a judiciary blinded by class nepotism and copious amounts of faceless civil servants have ridden the storm to 'get away with it' maybe for another while. The people of Derry deserve the truth and maybe then we can put this behind us and start the healing process. Will it be worth waiting for? Don't hold your breath. 'A debt of justice and truth is still owed to the victims, to the bereaved and to the people of Derry. The British military, the British judiciary, the British Government and the Stormont regime – all must accept responsibility for Bloody Sunday and its consequences. Only then can the wounds of that day finally be healed' it says on the monument to Bloody Sunday found on Rossville Street. Only then can the wounds of that day finally be healed. This week we will whisper again 'sheer unadulterated murder' as we recreate the route of that scar on our collective consciousness. They burned a scar on the soul of this city. A scar that spawned our collective fear, anger and hate and stole the youthfulness of this city. A scar that has not healed and has still not faded with time. Only the truth can heal this scar and take away the pain of that eventful day. Only then will the scar begin to fade….. only then can we get on with life…
'We are stuck in limbo' - Bloody Sunday widow A woman widowed on Bloody Sunday last night vowed to "campaign for truth until the death". In an interview with the 'Journal,' Eileen Doherty-Green described waiting on the findings of the Saville Inquiry as being "stuck in limbo" 36 years after the British Army murdered 14 people in the Bogside. Mrs Doherty-Green, whose husband, Patrick was among those shot dead by the Paras, claimed the delay in publishing the findings was a "stalling tactic." The mother of six, who has since re-married, said: "The whole of Derry knows what happened that day. Paras giving evidence to the tribunal made it sound like they were rounded on by marchers who hemmed them in but their statements were totally inaccurate and incoherent." Mrs. Doherty-Green who was also on the ill-fated march, said: "I was 29 when they murdered my husband. I am 66 this year and I want the matter resolved." Photographs and forensic tests for gunshot residue proved 31-year-old Patrick Doherty was unarmed when he was shot dead outside the Rossville Flats. His widow said: "It is tragic to think that mothers have gone to their graves having never had their murdered sons' names cleared. There are now grandchildren whose grandfathers were murdered and names never cleared. "The campaign started in 1985 when my son Tony asked me if I would like to be in contact with the other famliies. I want my son to know how thankful I am for that." "To Tony his daddy was his hero and he wouldn't rest until his name was cleared. "It has been a long hard road but the campaigning was worth it. There is nothing I wouldn't go through to ensure the truth is told about that day." Asked did she believe that prosecutions would follow, Mrs Doherty-Green stated: "Not one Paratrooper will spend a day in jail. I will be content so long as the names of all the dead are cleared. It's madness to think otherwise. Will we get the truth? I hope so, we deserve it as do the children and grandchildren of the deceased." Asked what it meant to her that thousands of people still attend the annual Bloody Sunday march, Mrs. Doherty-Green said: "It shows the passion of the people for justice. They march on the coldest day of the year, every year. First we marched for an Inquiry, now people march for the findings to be made public. We got the Inquiry and we couldn't have done any more. What we have already achieved is remarkable. We had a Lord Chief Justice tribunal rubbished, people should realise how big that was. It was history in the making." It has been suggested that this could be the last year of the Bloody Sunday March should the findings be released. Mrs Doherty-Green added: "I wouldn't like people to think we are dragging them out but if others believe different it is their own decision. I am just very glad of all the support down the years."
Scrap Sunday inquiry now, says Tory MP The British shadow defence secretary last night defended comments he made in a national newspaper where he called for the Saville Inquiry to be scrapped before it delivers its verdict in a bid to reduce costs. Conservative MP Gerard Howarth was quoted in a British tabloid saying the Saville Inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday in 1972, “should be scrapped and any money still to be spent devoted instead to something worthwhile, like police pay.” Speaking to the ‘Journal,’ Mr. Howarth, MP for Aldershot, said he believes the money spent on the inquiry led by Lord Saville - believed to be more than £170 million - “could be spent better almost anywhere else.” Mr. Howarth claimed the inquiry was set up as a “sop” to republicans and questioned what it would achieve. “My opinion has always been that Tony Blair set up this inquiry as a sop to republican opinion. There can be no winners. If Saville finds in favour of the families will the issue end there? I don't think so. I think there will be people who want trials or compensation and who will want to take this further. If Saville finds in favour of the soldiers then the families will say it was a whitewash. It is so long ago and it seems to me that Northern Ireland is at long last emerging from a very dark trough and I don’t know what will be achieve by spending this amount of money,” he said. Mr. Howarth acknowledged Bloody Sunday was a “dreadful tragedy” but added that many families in England had suffered as a result of the Troubles. “Of course for all these families that has been a dreadful tragedy, just as it was for all of the United Kingdom. Every situation where civilian life is lost through the intervention of the armed forces is a tragedy. Thousands of families have suffered and are suffering still as a result of what has euphemisticaly been known as the Troubles,” he said. Mr. Howarth represents the garrison town of Aldershot and some of his constituents include former paratroopers who were in Derry on Bloody Sunday. The headquarters of the parachute regiment in Aldershot were targeted by an Official IRA bomb several weeks after Bloody Sunday. The attack killed four female cleaners and a British Army chaplain. Mr. Howarth said the suffering of families in his constituency is the same as that of the Bloody Sunday families. “There are a lot of families who have suffered, including the families in Londonderry who suffered. But they are not the only ones. I feel that no amount of money is going to change that suffering.“ There are families of soldiers in my constituency, who did their duty to the best of their ability, who lost their lives. The people of my constituency know all about that. We lost six people, including civilian cleaners and a chaplain, in Aldershot in an IRA bombing in response to Bloody Sunday. “I don’t want to appear unsympathetic to the families who lost loved ones on Bloody Sunday because I am not; I just think the money could be better spent,” he said.
Publication of Saville report urged The families of the 13 civilians shot dead by British army paratroopers in the Bogside area of Derry 36 years ago, yesterday called for the Saville Inquiry report into the killings to be made available to them on the same day it is submitted to the British government. A crowd in excess of 5,000 yesterday attended the annual Bloody Sunday commemoration march in Derry, among them Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, SDLP leader Mark Durkan and Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams. The final report into the killings and wounding of 14 others is expected to be completed by the inquiry's chairman Lord Saville later this year. In a recent letter to the families of the Bloody Sunday victims, Lord Saville said when the report was ready, it was his duty to submit it first to the Northern Ireland Secretary of State who will then be responsible for making the report public. Lord Saville, who chaired the six-year long inquiry, said he also intended to give "a substantial period of advance notice to the interested parties of the delivery of the report to the secretary of state". However, speaking at a rally following yesterday's march, Joe McKinney, whose brother Willie was one of the victims, said the families of the dead and wounded expected to receive the report within the next few months. "When the Bloody Sunday inquiry completes its report, it will be presented to Shaun Woodward, the British Secretary of State for the North. This may become one more part of our long struggle. "Shaun Woodward is a representative of the British government and we ask why the British government or anyone else should get to see this report before we do? "If the British government has this report, we do not believe that the ministry of defence, who represent the soldiers and officers involved in murder here on Bloody Sunday, will not have it also. "Why should they get to see this report before us and get time to prepare their spin and lies for their tame journalists, while we may only have a few hours to see the report before we have to respond? "We demand that all interested parties get to see this report at the same time, that there should be no advantage for any interested party just because they are the British government," he said.
Cost of inquiries 'horrify' tories Tory politicians are "horrified" at the spiralling costs of inquiries into the past, the Shadow Secretary of State has revealed. Owen Paterson said there were growing concerns among the Conservative rank and file about the amount of cash being ploughed into the investigations, particularly for the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, where the bill has now reached £181m. He was speaking after a visit to Ulster to meet Lord Eames and Denis Bradley, who head the Consultative Group on the Past. Mr Paterson said: "There is more than a feeling of unease in the Tory party. People are horrified at the costs of the inquiries and wonder what other good could have been done with this money. "For example the Police Federation are having problems getting money for people who need psychiatric help to deal with the past. "There is a feeling that well-heeled London lawyers are the ones benefiting the most. There is a case for a low key approach to getting to the truth. I do fear the present is being swamped by the past. "There are huge present needs that the police face but they have to spend 40% of their time on the past." His comments come on the back of reports that Shadow Defence Secretary Gerald Howarth claimed the Saville Inquiry "should be scrapped and any money still to be spent devoted instead to something worthwhile, like police pay". TOM COMMENT Let's be quite clear about this: The British establishment are solely responsible for the cost of the Saville Inquiry. If the British military had not 'closed ranks' and Widgery had conducted an open and honest inquiry, there would never have been the need for the Saville Inquiry. How much money was spent on legal challenges to the Saville Inquiry by the British military? Attempting to obtain the truth when faced with resistance from those who planned and carried out the massacre that was Bloody Sunday has apparently cost £181m. Truth costs nothing. If you disagree with the comments of these Tory MPs please let them know. Write/e-mail/fax the Conservative Shadow Secretary of State Owen Paterson at his North Shropshire constituency office. His contact details can be found here: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/commons/member/search/l/Owen%20Paterson.html Write/e-mail/fax the Conservative Shadow Defence Secretary Gerald Howarth at his Aldershot constituency office. His contact details can be found here: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/commons/member/search/l/Gerald%20Howarth.html Also, write/e-mail/fax your local MP at: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/commons/l/ or http://www.writetothem.com/
TOM Action Call - No Further Delay of Saville Report! The Troops Out Movement were earlier today contacted by a representative of the Bloody Sunday relatives. John Kelly, whose brother Michael was one of the thirteen civilians murdered by British Paratroopers on 30th January 1972 (the fourteenth victim died some time later) informed us that they had been notified by Lord Saville that his report into the murder of their loved-ones has, once again, been delayed. John, who was clearly upset and angered by the news, said: "I am angry and totally devastated to have to wait at least another year for this report to be published. "Saville recently informed us that the report had gone to professional editors, indicating that completion was in sight. "It adds insult to injury that we have been given no real reason for the delay. "The families have been very patient, but our patience is wearing thin. "We have a right to be treated with respect and dignity. "The Saville Inquiry opened on 3rd April 1998 and officially closed in November 2004. "Four years on we have no report. "Why is there such reluctance to release the report to public scrutiny?" Mary Pearson, Secretary of the Troops Out Movement, which, since it was formed in 1974, has campaigned to expose the truth of what really happened on Bloody Sunday, said: "This is yet another example of the British establishment treating Irish people with contempt. "The relatives of the Bloody Sunday victims have a right to the immediate publication of this report. "We are asking people to demand that the report be published immediately and that the relatives receive it simultaneously along with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland." What can you do?
Let us ensure people in England, Scotland and Wales are aware of what is being done in their name! Troops Out Movement ~ Campaigning
for British Withdrawal from Ireland e-mail: troopsoutmovement@btinternet.com website: www.troopsoutmovement.com
Battle ahead over release of the Saville Report By Eamon McCann The arrangements being made for release of the Saville Report could result in its contents being distorted before they reach the public. It is expected that the Report, running to more than 4,000 pages, will be presented to the Northern Ireland Office before the end of the year. We have had target dates before, of course, and all have been missed. But this time it seems we are on target. Having taken possession of the Report from Saville, the NIO will decide at what point the public, including the families of the slain and the surviving wounded, will be given access to the document. Secretary of State Shaun Woodward intends to hold onto the Report for an unspecified period before releasing it. He will also dictate the conditions under which the families will then be allowed sight of it. The result is likely to be that the families and their supporters will be put at a huge disadvantage when responding to the Report and commenting on its findings. The political representatives of those who perpetrated the massacre will be much better placed to stamp their version of the Report on the public mind. Woodward says the reason for delaying publication is so that officials can determine whether lives would be endangered by the document as delivered by Saville being made public. Specifically, he says, they will have to check Saville's draft for breaches of Article Two of the European Convention on Human Rights - the article guaranteeing the right to life. The NIO will order the redaction of any passage which they find to be in breach of the Article. The plan is, then, that the Bloody Sunday Report may well be published with words, lines, paragraphs or passages blacked out on the orders of the British Government. Woodward's justification of this arrangement doesn't stand scrutiny. Throughout its hearings, the Saville Tribunal had no option but to be mindful of the requirements of Article Two. At various times, representatives of particular parties, as was their right, interrupted evidence to make submissions based on Article Two, and, more than once, unhappy with Tribunal rulings, took their concerns to the High Court. The reason the Tribunal moved to London for a year was that the soldiers and some others had successfully argued that their Article Two rights could not be vindicated if they were made to give evidence in Derry. Saville and his colleagues will have had the provisions of Article Two prominently in mind as they compiled their Report. The notion of NIO officials having to stand by to go through their findings in case Saville has misunderstood the law is laughable. The most likely effect of Woodward delaying the Report while his officials go through it is that the soldiers' side will be very well prepared for the propaganda battle which is certain to erupt the instant the Report is put into the public domain. British officials will have had ample opportunity to tease out any sentence which can be quoted in isolation to suggest that the soldiers' behaviour had been generally reasonable, and to identify phrases which can be construed to mean that the shooting by the paras had been prompted by shots from Republicans. Woodward insists that this won't happen. He tells that the Report will be studied and analysed within the NIO solely to determine whether Article Two has been complied with. No-one involved in this operation will discuss the contents of the Report with other officials of the NIO or other Government Departments. People who choose to believe this are free to do so. But they will be shutting their eyes to the cynicism and mendacity which have been the hallmarks of New Labour's handling of sensitive material, particularly material which relates to the morality and legality of military matters, since coming into office 12 years ago. In light of experience, not to mention common sense, can any of us be confident that one or other or all of MI5, MI6, Military Intelligence, Downing Street and the upper echelons of the Ministry of Defence will not have the Report in their hands or on-screen after it has come into the hands of the NIO but before the Bloody Sunday Families have had a chance to look over it? Can we safely rule out the possibility, to put it no higher, that a version of the Report or of some of it will have been leaked from the NIO to journalists sympathetic to the soldiers before the families have set eyes on it? State murder The British Government is not a disinterested party in the matter of Bloody Sunday. One of the key distinctions between Bloody Sunday and seemingly comparable events - McGurk's Bar, Loughinisland, Enniskillen, Whitecross, the Shankill, Greysteel, etc. - is that this wasn't an atrocity perpetrated on one community by a gang claiming to represent the other community: it was the State itself which did the murders in Derry. Bloody Sunday doesn't fit into the pattern of history which is preferred by British Governments, attributing the violence which has pock-marked our last 40 years solely to hostility between "the two communities", with the British ruling class standing above and between the contending factions. When the State murders its citizens it is in the interests of every section of society to know how and why this happened and to be able to be confident that the action has been unequivocally repudiated by the State. The only way to achieve this is through the State acknowledging the full truth and bringing those responsible to book. This is not a matter which should be the concern only of the section of society from which the victims were drawn. None of this is to suggest that Bloody Sunday can provide justification for any of the atrocities committed by paramilitaries on any side over the intervening years. It does mean that if society demands that paramilitary organisations admit their crimes, no less should be demanded from the State. To express regret for what happened and apologise to the victims doesn't come close to meeting the case. We are entitled to demand that the British Government accept that Bloody Sunday was a crime and that those responsible - those who organised and sanctioned the operation as well as those who pulled the triggers - were criminals. We must wait and see whether Saville endorses this characterisation of the killings. In the meantime, what we can learn from the way Woodward wants Saville's Report handled is that the British Government is as far away as ever from facing up to the facts of the Bloody Sunday massacre.
Saville
report due in December The Saville Inquiry report into the Bloody Sunday killings in Northern Ireland is expected in December. More than four years after hearings closed, authoritative sources close to the investigation confirmed the report should be presented to the Government by Christmas. The inquiry was established in 1998 by then prime minister Tony Blair to re-examine the events of January 30 1972, when British soldiers shot dead 14 people attending a civil rights march in Derry. Costing nearly £200 million, it was the most expensive inquiry in British legal history and lasted for five years, with the first witness heard in November 2000 and the last in January 2005. The tribunal was chaired by Lord Saville of Newdigate, alongside two other judges from Australia and Canada. There were 2,500 witness statements, of whom 922 were called to give direct evidence. There were also 160 volumes of evidence, containing an estimated 20-30 million words, plus 121 audio tapes and 110 videotapes. Eamonn McCann, Bloody Sunday Trust chairman, welcomed the news. “It has been a long, long wait. If, as it would appear, we are getting fairly definite dates after half a dozen false alarms then I know the families will be pleased,” he said. He said most of the mothers and fathers of the victims had died before seeing publication of the report. “There will be a lot of relief but some apprehension as to what the report might contain but this is welcome news,” he added.
Bloody
Sunday findings hit by new delay A new delay has been announced in the publication of the findings into the £200m (€222m) Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Lord Saville’s findings will not now be ready until next March, more than six years after the marathon probe ended into the January 1972 shootings in Derry. Downing Street had been expected to take delivery of the report later this year - Christmas at the latest. But Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward has now been told it will not be ready until March 22 next year. Relatives of the victims expressed disbelief at the new hold up and a clearly exasperated Mr Woodward said he was concerned by the delay. He added: “I am concerned at the impact on the families of those who lost loved ones and those who were injured. I am equally concerned at the increased anxiety that soldiers serving on the day will suffer.” Thirteen men were shot dead when British Paratroopers opened fire on civil rights marchers in the city's Bogside. A 14th man, who was among the wounded, died later in hospital. The Saville Inquiry, which sat mostly in Derry’s Guildhall, but also in London, effectively ended in 2004, though three witnesses were heard later. The first witness gave evidence in November 2000. The inquiry was set up by the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair in January 1998 as a major concession to nationalists and republicans as part of the developing peace process. But the length of time it took to complete, and especially the costs involved – they currently stand at £188m (€208.6m) – has been subject of fierce criticism among Unionist and Conservative MPs. Tonight’s confirmation of yet another delay in publication of the report infuriated relatives of the victims.
Families'
dismay at Saville delay Families of those killed on Bloody Sunday have criticised another delay to the Saville Inquiry report. Tribunal chairman Lord Saville said he was "extremely disappointed" that the report would not be given to the government until March next year. John Kelly, whose brother Michael was killed, said he was "devastated" and "still in shock" at the delay. Thirteen people died when paratroopers opened fire during a civil rights march in Londonderry in January 1972. Another person died later of their injuries. "When I got the information yesterday telling it would be March, it knocked me for six," Mr Kelly said. "I couldn't believe what I was reading and I can't understand the reasons behind it." Liam Wray, who also lost his brother on Bloody Sunday, said he hoped the families would finally be vindicated. "I feel like a child waiting for Christmas. "We were waiting for Christmas to have a resolution, maybe, to something that happened nearly 40 years ago. "At least we've got a date now, and I've got something to focus on," he said. Anxiety Eamonn McCann of the Bloody Sunday Trust said it would be bad timing to publish the inquiry's findings in March. "It is possible that the report will be published in the middle of an election campaign," he said. Solicitor Des Doherty, who represents the family of one of the victims, said he was "seriously concerned" the government will be given the report before the families. "The government, and potentially sections of the Ministry of Defence and the treasury solicitors and their clients may know what's in this report well in advance of the families, and of course the lawyers for the families. "We will be no doubt be pushed before the world's media on the day this is published and yet again the government will be well in advance in respect of their knowledge of the report," he said. NI Secretary Shaun Woodward said he was "profoundly shocked" by the delay. "I am concerned at the impact on the families of those who lost loved ones and those who were injured," he said. "I am equally concerned at the increased anxiety that soldiers serving on the day will suffer." Publishers It is understood the government will take some time to consider Lord Saville's findings before publishing them. In a letter to legal teams, Lord Saville said the report, which will run into thousands of pages, must be with publishers for some months before it can be finalised. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry is the longest and most expensive inquiry in British legal history. The first witness was heard in November 2000 and the last in January 2005. The tribunal received 2,500 statements from witnesses, with 922 of these called to give direct evidence. There were also 160 volumes of evidence, containing an estimated 20-30 million words, plus 121 audio tapes and 110 video tapes.
Bloody
Sunday: the wait continues By Eamonn McCann Another delay in Lord Saville's inquiry on the Bloody Sunday shootings has only heightened anxiety about the report's release The latest delay in publication of the Saville report has dismayed the Bloody Sunday families and their supporters. A few months ago, in the last of a series of estimations of a publication date, Lord Saville told the families that he expected to deliver his report by the end of this year. In a letter to the families this week, however, he says that – "in the absence of unforeseen circumstances" – he will hand the report to Northern Ireland secretary Shaun Woodward in the week beginning 22 March next year. The families appreciate that the tribunal has had to sift through a mountain of material. Lord Saville and his colleagues – William L Hoyt, formerly chief justice of New Brunswick, and John L Toohey, former justice of the high court of Australia – considered more than 1,500 witness statements and heard oral evidence from almost 1,000 witnesses over 404 days of hearings in Derry and London. The report is expected to run to about 4,500 pages. However, the inquiry finished hearing the main body of evidence in February 2004. Counsel to the inquiry, Christopher Clarke, delivered his two-day summing-up in November 2004. There is some puzzlement in Derry that production of the report has taken so long. Speculation as to the reasons are widespread – and, in some instances, probably fanciful: disagreement between the three judges, government interference and pressure, a desire on somebody's part to produce the report in the run-up to or in the midst of an election campaign. That said, this is the first time a more or less precise target date has been set down, encouraging hope that we are not about to face yet another false dawn. There is, perhaps, greater concern in Derry about arrangements for release of the report. Woodward has told the families that he will hold onto the documents for two or three weeks before the report is presented to parliament and then passed to the families and the wider public. The given reason is so that government officials can determine whether lives would be endangered by the document as delivered by Saville being made public. Specifically, Woodward has said, officials will have to check Saville's draft for breaches of article 2 of the European convention on human rights – the article guaranteeing the right to life. The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) will order the redaction of any passage that offends in this regard. It is intended that examination of the report will be carried out by the Treasury solicitors – the body which instructed barristers for the soldiers at the hearings – who will then inform the NIO of what redactions it considers appropriate. Woodward has given assurances that no one involved in this operation will reveal or discuss the contents of the report with other officials of the NIO or other government departments. Many in Derry are, from experience, deeply cynical, and do not rule out the possibility of MI5, MI6 or other security and intelligence agencies being given access to the document or knowledge of its contents well in advance of the families setting eyes on it. This would give representatives or supporters of the soldiers an enormous advantage in their crucial, initial response to the findings. April next year, the likely month of publication if the March deadline is met, will mark the 12th anniversary of Lord Saville coming to Derry and introducing himself to the families in the Guildhall. It may be that the families' epic search for the truth about the Derry massacre will then come to an end. But it may be, too, that they will have further battles to fight before they can rest content that everything possible has been done to vindicate their loved ones, shot down by members of the Parachute Regiment around Rossville Street in January 1972.
What can you do?
Let us ensure people in England, Scotland and Wales are aware of what is being done in their name! Troops Out Movement ~ Campaigning
for British Withdrawal from Ireland e-mail: troopsoutmovement@btinternet.com website: www.troopsoutmovement.com
Why did
Woodward meet with Bloody Sunday soldiers? The family of Bernard McGuigan, one of those shot dead on Bloody Sunday, last week refused to meet with Britain’s secretary in the six counties when he was in Derry to meet with relatives and legal representatives of the Bloody Sunday families. The McGuigan family say they are deeply concerned about meetings Shaun Woodward held with some of the soldiers involved in the murders. The family's legal representative, Mr Desmond Doherty, has requested a copy of the minutes of these meetings and said he can see no logical reason why the British government should be holding meetings with British soldiers involved in Bloody Sunday. He said: “I have contacted the Secretary of State's office asking for the minutes of the meeting he held with some of the soldiers. They responded that they were treating that as a Freedom of Information request but I told them that it was no such thing. “I think the McGuigan family has the right to know why these soldiers were meeting with representatives of the British government. “We have a right to know what was discussed and why these meetings were held.” He continued: “What concerns us most is the fact that Soldier F, the man we believe shot Bernard McGuigan, could well have been at that meeting and we can see no logical reason why the British Secretary of State should be sitting down with him discussing the Saville Report.” The Saville Report on the Bloody Sunday killings is due to be given to the British government next March and the relatives are currently in talks with that government on how the report will be released and when they will receive a copy.
Bloody
Sunday Leaked Tape A fascinating programme Call Sign GI3 GGY was broadcast today on BBC Radio Ulster in which Derry radio ham Jimmy Porter was interviewed. You can listen to a recording of the programme at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00q0h42. A few minutes into the programme Mr Porter speaks of the tapes he recorded of British army and police conversations during the shootings on Bloody Sunday in Derry in 1972 and his subsequent confrontation with Lord Widgery who warned him he had made powerful enemies and that he should destroy the tapes. The leaked tape can be downloaded at http://fastfreefilehosting.com/file/32070/sundayLeakedTape-mp3.htmll.
Bloody
Sunday Remembered in the English Midlands The Troops Out Movement, which campaigns for British withdrawal from Ireland, held its annual Bloody Sunday Remembered meetings in the Midlands last week. The 1992 BBC film by Peter Taylor Remember Bloody Sunday was shown and the main speaker was Cahil McElhinny, whose brother Kevin was shot dead by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday, 30th January 1972. The families have suffered 38 years of loss with no government acknowledgement of the truth of that day. Peter Taylor’s film Remember Bloody Sunday shows the horrific reality of what happened on the day of the massacre. It shows the lengths the British army went to trying to cover up their atrocities, the stunned disbelief of the people of Derry out on a fine day to protest about Internment and the shock and disbelief of the relatives who lost their loved ones. It shows the outrageous arrogance of senior army officers refusing to admit they did anything wrong and the honesty of one sergeant major seriously critical of the army actions and attitudes. It also exposes the original Widgery Tribunal for the pack of lies it was. Interestingly in the film Colonel Derek Wilford refers to “normal operations of war”, “act of war” and “..... end the war in Ireland”. When did the British government admit that they were at war in the Six Counties? Their army spokesman exposed the British lie of its motivation for being in Ireland. It certainly wasn’t peacekeeping as the British people were told. Cahill went on after the film to speak of the Saville Inquiry and the relatives’ frustration at the lack of progress with publication of the report. It is over five years since the end of the Inquiry. The relatives have been told that the report is at the printers and has to be proof read three times. They have been told that it should be released in March, but of course, if the Prime Minister announces the date of the General Election it will then be shelved and the Tories have said that they will bury the report as it has cost far too much already. The high cost of the Saville Inquiry is because the British authorities told lies in the first place. Lies and cover ups are what have cost millions, truth costs nothing. Cahil spoke of the British army’s destruction of the rifles used on Bloody Sunday just days before the Inquiry started. No-one has been charged with perverting the cause of justice. Cahil also spoke to remind us of the Ballymurphy Massacre when eleven people were shot dead during the first three days of internment in August 1971. If the British authorities had dealt with this atrocity, carried out by the same soldiers who went on to commit the murders in Derry, maybe Bloody Sunday would never have happened. Cahill was also a guest speaker at the Annual General Meeting of Wolverhampton Trade Union Council where he was very well received. Mary Pearson of the Troops Out Movement had spoken on the Saville Inquiry at Birmingham TUC the previous week. The Troops Out Movement would like to thank Cahil and the other relatives of Bloody Sunday for keeping us continually updated on the progress (or otherwise) of the Saville Inquiry and extend our solidarity greetings to their anniversary events.
Further
delays feared in Bloody Sunday report A Leading Human Rights Lawyer has backed calls for Lord Saville to publish the Bloody Sunday report himself to prevent it being redacted. Speaking at the annual Bloody Sunday lecture delivered in An Culturlann in Great James Street on Friday, Christine Bell warned that "big chunks" of the report could be altered. Prof. Bell - who also sits on the Bloody Sunday Trust - said she was fearful of further delays in the publication of the long awaited report. "There is a danger of delays by soldiers and Ministry of Defence lawyers. If the suspicion is that they are going to be hung out to dry they will try to judicially review the report which could bury it for a long time," she said. Veteran civil rights campaigner Eamon McCann also addressed the audience about the dangers of possible leaks by the Ministry of Defence. "This would shrew the vision of the report and the first impression the public get of the Saville Report is vital," he said. "If it is favourable to the Ministry of Defence, that could cause real problems for the families."
The search
for truth and justice continues Bloody Sunday: John Kelly's harrowing memories of the day he lost his brother Michael forever There's a map of the world on a wall in the Museum of Free Derry and it tells a story that words simply cannot. Carefully placed drawing pins indicate countries that people have come from to learn the story of what happened in Derry on January 30, 1972. People from Iraq, Uruguay, Greenland, America and Australia and from many other countries have all travelled to the museum in Glenfada Park in the Bogside. Each person comes away with a true sense of what it was like to be on the infamous civil rights march which ended with 13 people losing their lives in the Bogside. That day became known as Bloody Sunday. John Kelly's 17-year-old brother Michael was among those shot dead that day. For nearly 40 years, John, along with all the other families who lost relatives on Bloody Sunday, have searched relentlessly for the truth and have demanded that their loved ones be declared innocent by the British government. John, now 62-years-old, is the Museum of Free Derry's Education and Outreach Officer. He recalls with striking detail the hours leading up to the moment when British Paratroopers opened fire and talks honestly and openly about how, later that day, he had to accompany his father to the morgue at Altnagelvin Hospital to identify his brother's body. "We eventually arrived at Altnagelvin and we took Michael into the Accident and Emergency ward," says John. "We laid him out on a bed and the doctor came in. He examined Michael and turned to me and said: 'I am sorry but your brother is dead'. I asked him if he was sure and he told me again that Michael was dead. I was completely numb." John was born in Bridge Street in October 1948. Two years later, his family moved to Limewood Street before settling in Dunmore Gardens in Creggan. "My parents, John and Kathleen, raised a family of nine girls and two boys. I had another brother who died when he was very young. My father was unemployed for most of his life and my mother made ends meet by running what would be known now as a catalogue club. Times were tough and we didn't have an awful lot." John attended St. Eugene's Primary School in Francis Street before moving on to the Christian Brothers were he stayed until he was 16-years-old. "Before all the trouble started, life was good. I loved growing up in Derry. I remember one time when myself and my cousin Hugh McConnell went out the back of our houses in Dunmore Gardens and took all the wood from the fences and chopped it down into wee sticks. We went round all of the houses and sold it to people as firewood. They were innocent times." Political opinion and ideology was not something that John was familiar with when growing up in Creggan in the 1960s. He describes a virtually unimaginable place and an era when Protestants and Catholics lived peacefully side by side. But, like many young Catholics, his opinion changed completely when a civil rights march in Derry was attacked by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) in 1968. "That day was a bit like when JFK was shot dead in the sense that you always remember where you were," says John. "I was getting my hair cut at the barbers near the Rossville Flats by Dana's father when the news came over the radio that the march had been attacked. I knew that there was a civil rights march taking place but I wasn't sure what it was all about. Political awakening "It was a political awakening for me. I soon began to understand what was happening around me." In August 1969, John got married and, soon after, the Battle of the Bogside erupted. Widely viewed as one of the important events of the Troubles, the Battle of Bogside took place after the RUC attempted to break up a protest by nationalists over a loyalist Apprentice Boys march through the city centre. "Relations between Protestants and Catholics severely deteriorated after the Battle of the Bogside. It was really, really bad," he says. The situation went from bad to worse when the British Army was deployed to Northern Ireland and, in August 1971, internment without trial was introduced. "When Seamus Cusack and Desmond Beattie were both shot dead in the Bogside, I remember thinking to myself that things were going to get really bad," says John. On January 30, 1972, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association organised a march in Derry. The march was due to make its way to Guildhall Square but because of barricades it was re-routed to Free Derry Corner in the Bogside. "I was living with my wife and family in Beechwood Avenue at the time," says John. "I got up early, went to Mass and then came home and had my dinner. I remember calling into my parents' house and Michael was really looking forward to the march. My mother didn't want to let him go but, eventually, she agreed and told him he could go. "Myself and Michael left the house together. I was meeting up with my friends and he was meeting up with his friends. I told him that if any bother should break out then he was to start running and to get home as soon as possible. "I remember the march making its way down William Street and I looked over at the General Post Office and I remember seeing the red berets of the Parachute Regiment - I thought it was a bit strange. Barney McGuigan "We made our way into Chamberlain Street and I remember that a few riots broke out so we decided to make our way to Free Derry Corner where all the speeches were taking place. On my way to Free Derry Corner, I ran into Barney McGuigan. I knew Barney because we worked together at the old BSR factory in Drumahoe and he used to give me a lift to work every morning. Little did I know that, soon after talking to him, Barney would be shot dead near the Rossville Flats." Nothing could have prepared John for what was about to happen. Just shortly after 4pm, the Parachute Regiment was given the order to move into the Bogside and moments later opened up with live ammunition. "Hundreds of people just started running when the shooting started. I was very near the Rossville Flats so I just ran and took cover behind a wall until the shooting stopped. "When I got up, I went to run towards Lisfannon Park and I remember hearing two whizzing sounds go past my head. They made the same sound that bullets would make if they went that close – I was terrified. "By pure coincidence, one of my brother-in-laws was taking cover behind one of the walls. We kept our heads down and we were asking one another what was going on. There was another lull in the shooting and we went to come out from behind the wall and two shots whizzed past my head. I looked left, right and directly in front of me and I couldn't see a single soldier which left me in no doubt that the shots had come from the Walls. "Eventually, we were able to come out and we looked over and saw that a lot of people were gathering in Abbey Park. We both went over to have a look. It was the body of Gerry McKinney. He was dead but some of the people were trying to resuscitate him. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. "Then someone called my name. They told me to come quick because Michael had been shot. They had taken Michael's body into a house in Abbey Park. I went to the house and helped to carry his body into an ambulance. There must have been about 13 people in the ambulance, it was madness. As we left Glenfada Park in the ambulance, Paratroopers tried to stop us. I just snapped and told them to 'f*** off'." Shortly after arriving at the hospital, John phoned his father and told him what had happened and said that he had to come to Altnagelvin. "My father arrived and we were both taken to the morgue. When we went in, there were three or four dead bodies lying on beds. There was blood everywhere and we had to look at each dead body until we arrived at Michael. When my father saw Michael he went completely weak and fell to the floor. "There was police outside the morgue and, as we made our way out, they said they wanted to ask us some questions. We had just identified Michael's body and they wanted to ask us questions! I was furious and told them to leave us alone. "As we waited in the car for my father to finish off signing some paper work, an army Saracen pulled up outside the hospital. A few of the soldiers got out and went to the back of the vehicle and pulled three dead bodies out by the ankles. They had to be declared dead by a doctor. As soon as they were finished, they brought the dead bodies out and threw them in the back of the Saracen again – I couldn't believe it." Devastated family The devastation and sense of loss felt by the Kelly family was inconceivable. John and his sisters had lost their brother and his parents had lost their youngest son. "Until the day my mother died, she carried a picture of Michael with her wherever she went," says John. "She was so protective of him and it wasn't until later that I found out that, when myself and Michael left to go on the march that day, my mother followed him so that she could keep an eye on him. "Michael was very sick when he was younger. He was in a coma for three weeks and the doctors said that he could die. My mother refused to hear any of it and she walked to and from the Waterside Hospital every day just to be with him when he was sick. That's why she worried about him so much. "My mother had no memory of the five years after Michael's death. She was completely heartbroken. I remember one time, on a particularly cold day, she was found walking up Broadway with a blanket under her arm. When she was asked where she was going, she said that she was taking the blanket up to the cemetery to keep Michael warm. "I also remember years after Michael's death a soldier was shot in Westland Street. My mother went to his aid and comforted him. She said that the reason she did it was because, as far she was concerned, every boy was somebody's son and that was all that mattered." Kathleen Kelly died in 2004 but before her death she did attend the opening of the Saville Inquiry. "About a year and half before she died, my mother had a stroke. Things were really bad at the time and she was very unwell. I wanted to give her some peace of mind so I went to her and told her that we had won the case and that Lord Saville had ruled that Michael was innocent. She was so happy. I just had to do it." With Lord Saville due to hand his report over to the Northern Ireland Secretary of State in March, John believes that the families will get the truth they have searched for. John also remains determined to ensure that the soldier who shot Michael is charged with murder. "Murder is murder and I firmly believe that I will see that soldier prosecuted for the murder of Michael. We have been told that this soldier shot dead four of those killed on Bloody Sunday. If there's any sense of justice or closure to be had, he has to be prosecuted. "I remember watching him as he gave evidence at the inquiry. He claims to have no memory of what happened that day and he showed no remorse for what he had done – I was totally shocked. How can you not remember taking four human lives? "I hope to see him again in court and I believe I will see him in court. Prosecutions "I pray that, when Lord Saville publishes his report, all those who were shot dead or injured will receive a full declaration of innocence; we want to see the Widgery Tribunal repudiated and we want to see the soldiers who killed people that day prosecuted. "I hope, pray and believe that all the other families who lost relatives on Bloody Sunday will get their justice, too."
MI5 case
raises Bloody Sunday fears An attempt by the British Government to influence a judge who criticised MI5 has raised fears that the Bloody Sunday report may be doctored. A Derry MLA has stated that the handling of the Binyam Mohamed case - in which a top English judge was asked by the government’s leading lawyer to reconsider his draft judgment and criticism of MI5 before it was handed down - proves the need for the Saville Inquiry to publish its findings at the same time as it is given to the Secretary of State. Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls, found that the Security Service had failed to respect human rights, deliberately misled parliament, and had a "culture of suppression" that undermined government assurances about its conduct. Sinn Fein assemblywoman Martina Anderson said the revelation “dispelled any doubts” about the need for Saville to make his findings known to the families at the same time as the British Government. “What this case clearly shows is that the British establishment will still seek to do whatever it takes to cover up its own wrongdoings. “None of us should be under any illusions that they will treat the Saville report any differently, which is why it must be given to families at the same time as the British Government. “Otherwise, the establishment, their government and their army, whose actions Saville has been investigating, will have plenty of time, definitely weeks, possibly even months, to prepare their responses and their excuses, and to edit, leak and spin the report to suit themselves. “That is simply unacceptable. There must be no more cover-ups and no more coercion. It’s time to set the truth free.”
Lord
Saville - Set the Truth Free! The Pat
Finucane Centre have released the following statement from the
Bloody Sunday families and wounded: We are calling on Shaun Woodward
to agree that Lord Saville should Set the Truth Free! Support “The HET reports are not submitted for vetting to the British government or for approval to the Ministry of Defence. “We are deeply concerned that the Bloody Sunday Inquiry report is to be submitted for what amounts to vetting by the Ministry of Defence. “We are concerned that the government is apparently implying that Saville and his team are not competent to ‘Article 2-proof’ the report.” Action alert! The Troops Out Movement join the Pat Finucane Centre in offering full support to the Bloody Sunday families and call for Lord Saville to RELEASE THE REPORT TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AT THE SAME TIME! We also call for our members and supporters, and visitors to this website, to take action. What can you do?
Let us
ensure people in England, Scotland and Wales are aware of what is
being done in their name!
Trust
and the Bloody Sunday report Secretary of State Shaun Woodward says that the Bloody Sunday Families should trust him to be fair in his handling of the report of the Saville Tribunal. Woodward wants to retain the report for some unspecified period after Saville delivers it - a fortnight has been mentioned – before passing it on to the Families and other parties. The purpose, he says, is to allow government officials, including from MI5, to check whether Saville has inadvertently put national security at risk or breached articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The arrangement would give the government representatives an opportunity to comb through the expected 4,500 pages of text before anyone else has sight of it. This would put the Families at a huge disadvantage when it comes to assimilating and analysing the findings. Woodward insists that New Labour wouldn't dream of using this procedure to try to influence the presentation of the findings or to muffle or deflect criticism of its agencies or armed forces. They should try telling that to Binyam Mohamed. The week before last, three of Britain's most senior judges - Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice; Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division; and Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls - rejected pleas from Foreign Secretary David Miliband that they should suppress a seven-paragraph document showing that MI5 officers had been involved in the torture of Mr Mohamed while he was being held in a "black site" in Pakistan by the CIA. The document showed that MI5 had supplied the CIA with information and questions to be put to Mr. Mohamed though it was aware that Mohamed was being subjected to treatment which, if administered in the UK, would be in clear breach of undertakings about interrogation techniques made by the British government following the scandal of the ill-treatment of internees in Long Kesh in 1971. In his draft judgment, circulated to the parties to the case, Lord Neuberger was fiercely critical of MI5's behaviour. The Government responded by instructing its chief lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC, to write to Neuberger - without informing Mohamed's lawyers - urging him to reconsider his draft before delivering it in court. Neuberger agreed. But Sumption's letter was then made public after lawyers for Mohamed, having become aware of what was afoot, went back to court and argued that it was wrong that they hadn't been given a chance to rebut Sumption's argument. Sumption's letter was astonishing stuff. He warned that the judgment as it stood would be seen as finding that MI5 did not respect human rights; had not given up "coercive interrogation" techniques; had deliberately misled parliament; and had revealed a "culture of suppression" in its dealings with the Government and the court. The judgment as a whole would be "exceptionally damaging" to MI5, said the government. On this basis, they wanted it changed. Had Mr. Mohamed’s lawyers not rumbled what was happening, the “exceptionally damaging” judgment might never have come to light. This was as clear a case as it is possible to imagine of a government trying by devious means to change the findings of a senior judge in order to conceal evidence of its security services’ wrong-doing. The same government, through Mr. Woodward, now wants the Families to accept its bona fides with regard to Saville to the extent of agreeing that MI5 officers should be allowed to pore over the Report in advance to see if there’s anything in it which they would rather was taken out. They have some neck. |
