|
|
|
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 |
