This snapshot, taken on
17/10/2010
, shows web content acquired for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search may not work in archived websites and contact details are likely to be out of date.
 
 
The UK Government Web Archive does not use cookies but some may be left in your browser from archived websites.

Skip to Content | Accessibility Statement | Site Map

Report of the The Bloody Sunday Inquiry
- Volume IV - Chapter 58



Other evidence of paramilitary gunmen in Sector 2

Chapter 58: Other evidence of paramilitary gunmen in Sector 2

Contents

Paragraph

The gunman described by Fr Daly 58.2

OIRA 4 58.8

Robert Brady 58.17

Gerard Grieve 58.18

William Harley 58.19

Maureen Gerke 58.24

Evidence of shots fired up Chamberlain Street 58.26

Bernard Gilmour 58.26

Frank Lawton 58.30

Peter McLaughlin 58.34

Joe Nicholas 58.37

Assessment of the civilian evidence of a gunman firing up Chamberlain Street 58.38

Cyril Cave 58.41

Jim Deeney 58.52

John Bierman 58.53

Private INQ 5 58.55

The absence of stationary Army vehicles in Rossville Street 58.56

Assessment of the evidence relating to the sound on the film clip 58.57

Summary of the civilian evidence of a gunman 58.59

Descriptions of the gunman 58.60

Consideration of the evidence describing a gunman 58.81

The gunman described by Monica Barr 58.109

The gunman described by Billy Gillespie 58.120

The Sunday Times notes 58.120

Whether Eileen Collins saw the body of a gunman 58.132

The gunman described by Gunner 030 58.145

The evidence of Patrick Gerard Doherty 58.159

The man seen in Gilles Peress’s photograph 58.162

58.1 We now turn to consider evidence from others (apart from the members of Mortar Platoon) of paramilitary gunmen in Sector 2.

The gunman described by Fr Daly

58.2 In his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry, Fr Edward Daly, after describing giving Jackie Duddy the last rites and seeing Michael Bridge shot, recorded that he and the others there decided to try to carry Jackie Duddy to a position where he could receive medical aid.1 His statement continued:

“Just as we were about to get up and make a dash for Chamberlain a civilian gunman appeared at the gable of the last house in Chamberlain Street. I first of all saw the man move along the gable of the house. I thought his movements were strange and suddenly he produced a gun from his pocket … it was small hand gun and made a very different bang than the soldiers’ rifles … he fired two or three shots at the soldiers at the corner of the flats … I think they fired back although I am not sure. I shouted at him to go away or he would get us all killed. He looked round at us lying out in the middle of the car park and then he moved away. Alter lying for a few more moments, I got up on my knees and was just about to rise when the army opened fire again. We all dived to the ground again and lay there for another while. ”

1 H5.19-H5.20

58.3 Fr Daly gave a similar account in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry:1

“LORD WIDGERY: Is that the way you went?

A. That is the way we decided to go.

Q. We see this in the film?

A. There was an incident happened before that. Just as we were about to get up I saw a man with a brown jacket move along this gable here of this house here. He suddenly appeared on the corner of the house and moved along. I thought that his movements were rather strange and suddenly he produced a gun from his right hand pocket of his jacket, or it appeared in his right hand. It was a small gun, a hand gun and he fired two or three shots around this corner here at the soldiers. I think there were two soldiers; there certainly was one who stepped out from time to time. I remember the time he shot this boy here and he fired two or three shots at them.

We screamed at him to go away because again we were frightened the soldiers might think the fire was coming from where we were and he looked around and then he just faded out across here and I do not know where he went to; he must have gone into Chamberlain Street or somewhere. Then we decided to make a dash for it and we got up first of all on our knees and I waved this handkerchief and there was a burst of gunfire that came at the time. I remember we had to lie down again. ”

1 WT4.11

58.4 Fr Daly told the Widgery Inquiry that this was the only firearm that he saw that afternoon “outside of Army hands ”.1

1 WT4.14

58.5 Fr Daly gave similar accounts of this gunman in:

• an interview with Philip Jacobson and Peter Pringle of the Sunday Times Insight Team on 16th March 1972;1

• an interview with the journalist Tony Parker, published in the New Statesman and Society at the time of the 20th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in January 1992;2

• an interview in 1991 with the journalist Peter Taylor, who was carrying out research for the BBC television documentary Remember Bloody Sunday;3

• his written statement to this Inquiry;4

• an interview with Jimmy McGovern on 29th January 2001;5 and

• his oral evidence to this Inquiry.6

1 H5.59-60

2 H5.71-72; L244.2-L244.3

3 I43-44; I47-49

4 H5.6

5 H5.85-86; H5.91; H5.101

6 Day 75/36-39

58.6 According to Fr Daly’s accounts, the gunman moved along the gable end at the southern end of Chamberlain Street and fired from the corner in the direction of the soldiers. That corner was at the end of the garden wall that extended westwards from the gable end of the last house (number 36) on the west side of Chamberlain Street. An enlargement of one of the photographs taken by Derrik Tucker Senior from Block 2 of the Rossville Flats on Bloody Sunday, reproduced below, shows this gable end and the wall extending from it. It will be noted that on the eastern side of Chamberlain Street there is also a gable end and a wall running eastwards that formed the southern wall of the garden of the last house (number 33) on that side of Chamberlain Street. Many of the witnesses described the wall along which Fr Daly (and others) told us the gunman moved as “the gable end ” or “the gable end wall ”. We use these expressions in this report, though, as will be seen, in some cases it is necessary to distinguish between the western and eastern gable ends and their adjoining walls.

58.7 Because this gunman was seen and described by Fr Daly, he has become known as “Fr Daly’s gunman ”.

OIRA 4

58.8 OIRA 4 gave written evidence to this Inquiry in the form of two statements, one prepared by his solicitors and one taken by the Inquiry.1He was called to give oral evidence, but unfortunately fell ill soon after starting to do so and was unable for that reason to complete his evidence then or thereafter. As a result Counsel to the Inquiry could not finish his questioning of this witness, and the other interested parties were deprived of the opportunity to ask him any questions.

1 AOIRA4.1; AOIRA4.15

58.9 OIRA 4 told us that in 1972 he was a member of the Official IRA Command Staff in the north-west of Ireland, that he was based in Derry, and that he was the Adjutant and Finance Officer.1He told us that on Bloody Sunday he was carrying a .32in pistolto protect myself from the security forces.2

1 Day 394/3 2AOIRA4.15; Day 394/11-12

58.10 According to his written accounts to this Inquiry,1OIRA 4 was nearly 34 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He had been near the rioting at Barrier 14. He went along Chamberlain Street when he thought the Army was about to come in. He told us that it was as he was running down Chamberlain Street that he heard shooting for the first time that day. When he reached the car park he went in a few yards and saw Fr Daly attending to a body that he afterwards learned was that of Jackie Duddy. He then realised that the soldiers were firing live rounds, and so he ran back to the gable wall at the end of Chamberlain Street and moved westwards along this wall. From this point he said that he could see aSaracenwhich he recalled being near the north-east corner of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. His second account continued:2

“There seemed to be lots of shooting going on and I could see the paras firing but I cannot now recall exactly how many shots they fired because it all happened so quickly. I don’t know whether the paras I could see were firing all of the shots I could hear, but all the shots I could hear were high calibre, heavy duty fire and I took them all to be coming from the army.

I just lost my temper. The Brits were gunning down innocent civilians. I took my short weapon out of my pocket and fired two, possibly three, shots towards the Saracen at point D. I did it out of pure anger at what was happening around me. As I have said, my gun was a .32 calibre, a small, and looking back, pretty pathetic weapon, and I was probably well out of range to do any damage to the paras or their Saracen. I didn’t hear any pings or anything to suggest I hit the Saracen. Not only do I think I was out of range, I don’t even know if I fired well enough to hit it, but I was just firing out of pure frustration.

I never even thought about what was around the corner of the wall (northwards) because I was only concerned with firing at the Saracen and obviously not thinking straight. I wasn’t holding my gun around the corner shooting blindly northwards as has been suggested. I was shooting in a westerly direction towards the Saracen in front of me, and the paras near to the Saracen. I wasn’t aiming at anyone in particular, I was just firing towards where I could see the shooting coming from. Someone told me later

that at the end of the wall, around the corner where I couldn’t see, were a couple of paras and I know now that I was very lucky not to be seen and to have got out of the whole situation alive.

I don’t think the soldiers even noticed me. I have a vague feeling as I stood there that I could feel bullets going over my head, but this might be a false memory. If there were bullets going over my head I think they must have been getting fired at someone else rather than me. If those paras had seen me they wouldn’t have been firing over my head – I’d be dead now. They would have shot me to pieces. Even if I’d been caught with a weapon, let alone caught firing it, I would have been shot dead by the Brits. Of course, I didn’t think of any of this at the time; I was just so angry and firing out of frustration. At no time did I hear any shots coming from the area around me or above me from the Rossville Flats. Also, I have no recollection of any shots striking anywhere near me, so I could just be imagining this sensation. The only shooting I heard coming from our side that day was mine. I never heard any explosions that day at all.

The minute I had fired I was confronted by people shouting at me to stop. They were yelling at me words to the effect of ‘pack it in!’ or possibly ‘pack it in OIRA 4’ if they knew me. I can’t remember whether I knew any of the people who shouted to me, only that they wanted me to stop. Even Father Daly seemed to be shouting at me to stop from where he was attending to Jack Duddy. I was still mad as hell but these people brought me to my senses and I put my gun away in my coat pocket. It never left the pocket after that. ”

1 AOIRA4.4-AOIRA4.5; AOIRA4.15-AOIRA 4.17 2AOIRA4.17-AOIRA4.18

58.11 The “point D ” to which OIRA 4 referred in the second paragraph quoted above was, according to the map accompanying this statement, at about the north-east corner of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.1

1 AOIRA4.29

58.12 OIRA 4 told us that just after he had fired he saw Michael Bridge shot. He then went back to try to get into 33 Chamberlain Street, saw a group of people outside wondering what to do, and after a while followed the photojournalist Fulvio Grimaldi and his assistant Susan North, who had been in this group, through the alleyway between Blocks 2 and 3 of the Rossville Flats. According to his account he then left the area and went back to the Creggan.1

1 AOIRA4.19

58.13 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers did not accept that OIRA 4 was Fr Daly’s gunman.1For reasons that we give below, we consider that he probably was.

1 FS7.1432

58.14 There is no evidence from the soldiers that any or them saw or reacted to a gunman firing from the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street. In his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry,1Fr Daly had said that he thought, but was not sure, that the soldiers had fired back, but in his evidence to this Inquiry he was more than doubtful that they had done so or that they had even seen the gunman.2

1 H5.19-H5.20 2H5.6; Day 75/36-39

58.15 The first photograph reproduced below is an image of a photograph that was shown in a BBC documentary programme broadcast on 19th April 1972.1The reason why it is of poor quality is that the Inquiry does not have in its possession a print or negative of the original photograph. The image was produced from the 16mm film of the BBC programme by Alexis Slater of the Forensic Science Service, who also prepared two enlargements of sections of the photograph, which are reproduced beneath the complete image.2We set out and discuss later in this report3the evidence relating to the provenance of this photograph. For the reasons there set out we are of the view that the photograph was probably taken by Fulvio Grimaldi, despite his reluctance to admit that he had taken it. We are also of the view that this photograph probably does show Fr Daly’s gunman , again for reasons given below.

1 X1.12.1-20 3Paragraphs 58.86–108

2 E14.001; KS1.43

58.16 When he made his second statement to this Inquiry, OIRA 4 had been shown images of the photograph taken from a videotape of the BBC programme.1 These were similar to the images produced by Alexis Slater albeit of lesser quality. OIRA 4 told us that he did not “necessarily ” recognise himself, but he said: “I know it must be me because of the location. ”2

1 AOIRA4.33-AOIRA4.35 2AOIRA4.20-21

Robert Brady

58.17 Robert Brady died in 1996 and gave no evidence to this Inquiry, but he did give a statement to the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) in 1972.1 He gave a description of a gunman: “short, about 5´ 7Ë and he had black hair which just hung over his ears. He was wearing a black checked overcoat with a fur collar and black trousers. According to this account, the gunman fired two shots from the gable end of the last house in Chamberlain Street towards the waste ground, at a time when Fr Daly was assisting Jackie Duddy. Although OIRA 4 told us that he thought he was wearing a dark blue or black duffel coat,2 while Fr Daly described the man he saw as wearing a brown jacket,3 it seems to us that the man Robert Brady saw was probably the one seen by Fr Daly, since both describe a man firing from this position while Fr Daly was assisting Jackie Duddy. We return later in this report4 to consider a submission based on the fact that a number of witnesses gave different descriptions of the gunman that they said that they saw.

1 AB71.1

2 AOIRA4.21

3 WT4.11; H5.59; H5.85-H5.86

4 Paragraph 58.81

Gerard Grieve

58.18 We formed the same view of the evidence of Gerard Grieve1 who told us that as he went across the car park from Chamberlain Street to the gap between Blocks 1 and 2 of the Rossville Flats, he passed the group that included Fr Daly and looked back to see a civilian with a handgun walking along the gable end wall of Chamberlain Street: “All I can remember about this man is that he was approximately 5´ 6Ë, tall with grey hair and a grey moustache. I did not see him fire his gun.2

1 At the beginning of his oral evidence he told us that his name had been misspelt as “Greeve ” in his written statement (Day 147/1).

2 AG55.4

William Harley

58.19 William Harley told us, in his written statement to this Inquiry,1 that he watched events from 37 Donagh Place, which was on the top floor in the centre of Block 2 of the Rossville Flats. He stated:2

“One final recollection concerns a civilian gunman. I knew him from work but I will not name him. While I was standing at the balcony looking out on the Rossville Flats car park (before going inside my flat as I have described above) I noticed him at the gable end of Chamberlain Street at the south western corner of grid reference M15. His hair was black with a moustache and he wore a black coat and black trousers. I saw him before the armoured car reached point B described above. I remember him looking out around the western corner of the gable end in a northerly direction across the waste ground in Rossville Street. It was only a quick, furtive look after which he stepped back behind the gable end and took out a revolver with a 3" barrel from his right hand coat pocket. With his back to the gable end wall, the man reached out his right hand and bent his wrist around the corner of the wall and fired five or six shots without looking. From my vantage point in Block 2 of Rossville Flats, I watched the five or six shots simply fire into the ground. As far as I can recall, this all happened before I saw any soldiers on foot and before I saw or heard any gunfire from the

soldiers. I do not believe that the soldiers were aware of this man or his actions. I then watched the man turn and walk towards the southern end of Chamberlain Street in a south easterly direction. ”

1 AH36.1 2AH36.5-AH36.6

58.20 The grid reference M15 refers to the area of the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street and point B is the position where, from other evidence discussed above, Sergeant O’s Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) stopped in the car park. William Harley gave this Inquiry the name of the gunman that he said he saw. This was the name of OIRA 4.1

1 Day 78/172

58.21 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry1 William Harley corrected what he had stated about when this incident occurred:

“Q. You say that you saw this all happen before you saw any soldiers on foot and before you saw or heard any gunfire from the soldiers. Had you seen Jack Duddy’s body on the ground before this?

A. May I correct that statement, please?

Q. Yes, certainly.

A. That was a, an error on my part. The incident is exactly as I have described it, but the timing is completely wrong. The reason, at the time there were no soldiers anywhere near that gunman and that is what confused my thinking as to the time.
I know now that he fired round that corner while Jack Duddy’s body was lying on the ground. ”

1 Day 77/29

58.22 It was submitted by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers that this correction by William Harley of his written statement was “simply not credible ” and that he (apparently dishonestly) later altered his evidence “to fit in with the accepted explanation .1

1 FS7.1436-7

58.23 We reject this submission. William Harley was in our view doing his best to assist this Inquiry and we do not find it surprising or suspicious that on reflection he changed his mind about when he saw the incident in question. In our view what he was recalling was a sighting of Fr Daly’s gunman.

Maureen Gerke

58.24 Maureen Gerke gave evidence to this Inquiry that “Quite late on ” she saw from Block 3 of the Rossville Flats someone flattened against the wall at the gable end of Chamberlain Street with his right hand poking something round the corner into Chamberlain Street.1 In her oral evidence to this Inquiry2 she told us that this was after Jackie Duddy had been taken from the car park. She said that she did not know whether the man had a gun, but did recall people shouting at him to go away.3

1 AG27.9

2 Day 133/91

3 Day 133/92-93

58.25 Since people were, according to Maureen Gerke, shouting at the man to go away, it is reasonable to infer that they may have seen that he was armed. In our view this man was probably OIRA 4, since on his own account he did not leave this area until he followed Fulvio Grimaldi and Susan North to the gap between Blocks 2 and 3 of the Rossville Flats; and their evidence was that this was after Jackie Duddy had been taken along Chamberlain Street, and after Fulvio Grimaldi had photographed Margaret Deery and Michael Bridge in 33 Chamberlain Street.1Maureen Gerke did not suggest that she saw this man fire into Chamberlain Street. We return to her evidence below2after considering the accounts of those who suggested that a gunman fired up Chamberlain Street from its southern end.

1 M34.1-2; M34.10; M34.59-61; M35.4-7; Day 130/25-37 2Paragraph 58.38

Evidence of shots fired up Chamberlain Street

Bernard Gilmour

58.26 Bernard Gilmour, a brother of Hugh Gilmour who was killed on Bloody Sunday, told us in his written statement1that he saw a gunman near Chamberlain Street after Jackie Duddy had been shot. He stated that he knew who the gunman was, described him asa big, tall fellow wearing a maskand stated that he saw him fire some shots up Chamberlain Street.

1 AG38.4-AG38.5

58.27 During his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Bernard Gilmour wrote down the name of this man.1It was the same man as William Harley had identified, namely OIRA 4. However, Bernard Gilmour also told us that he could have been mistaken in recalling that the man had fired up Chamberlain Street, and on being shown one of the images of the gunman taken from the videotape of the BBC programme, to which we have referred above, said:2

“Q … Anyway, you cannot specifically recall now whether he fired up Chamberlain Street or into the waste ground?

A. No. I still get the recollection it was up Chamberlain Street – well, maybe I was wrong, but I thought he was firing up Chamberlain Street. This photograph here, he was firing up towards the waste ground, is he not?

Q. Yes, undoubtedly, if that is the same man?

A. Well, there was only one man there at that wall at the time, so I assume he must have been firing at the waste ground. ”

1 Day 88/14 2Day 88/15

58.28 Bernard Gilmour’s description of the gunman’s appearance does not fit OIRA 4’s evidence that he was not a big, tall man and never wore a mask.1 But the name matches OIRA 4, and in our view Bernard Gilmour probably saw OIRA 4 fire. It seems to us that his recollection of the description of the gunman may well have become distorted over the years. Again, we return to consider below2 his recollection that the gunman fired up Chamberlain Street.

1 AOIRA4.26 2Paragraph 58.38

58.29 In addition to Maureen Gerke and Bernard Gilmour, there are two other witnesses who gave evidence that a gunman fired up Chamberlain Street from its southern end.

Frank Lawton

58.30 Frank Lawton made a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) statement of which two typescript versions exist.1 The texts of the two versions of this statement are substantially identical. Frank Lawton then made a further statement, which was witnessed by a Londonderry solicitor.2 This statement is undated but was clearly made in 1972. In large part it reproduces the content of the NICRA statement but it contains some additional material. Frank Lawton also gave written and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.3

1 AL6.19; AL6.27 3AL6.21; WT6.77

2 AL6.29

58.31 In all the written accounts that he gave in 1972 Frank Lawton said that he had seen no-one other than members of the security forces carrying guns. In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry he made no reference to, and was not asked about, any paramilitary gunman.1 However, in his interview for Praxis Films Ltd2 in 1991 he told Tony Stark that he had seen an elderly man wearing a long raincoat and a flat cap: “And he was running about and he fired a handgun, as far as I could see, along the street where the soldiers were coming down, and then he disappeared out of sight, I don’t know where he went after that, you know?This interview continued:

“Q: Where was he when he fired the gun?

A: He was running about in the middle of the – the car park at the back. In actual fact er – as far as I remember Father Daley at the time, he passed – he passed him on his way to the corner of the flats where they were running for cover, you know.

Q: And when he fired at the soldiers, when was this?

A: It was – it was – as I say, it was er – as they were bringing the body across the back of the square, he – he appeared from somewhere. Where he appeared from, I do not know, but he started firing a gun and he fired about five or six shots as far as I could see along the street, and then he disappeared. ”

1 AL6.28; AL6.20; AL6.22 2O8.1-O8.2

58.32 The note made by Tony Stark’s colleague John Goddard concerning this witness1 included the following: “Gunman ran along wall, pulled out pistol, idiot, fired at troops, stopped by three people thrown against wall and ‘admonished’. Could have been .22 or even starting pistol.

1 O8.13

58.33 Frank Lawton gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. He said nothing in his written statement1 about the gunman, but he was asked about him during the course of his oral evidence.2 He told us that he did not know why he had not mentioned the gunman in his written evidence to this Inquiry. He said, “I may not have been asked that question.3 He initially told us that he did not know why he had not mentioned the gunman in the accounts that he gave in 1972,4 but said that “I just must have overlooked that particular piece; there was so much going on and there was so much I wanted to get down on that paper while it was still fresh in my mind that I must have just overlooked this particular incident.5 He told us that his recollection was that the gunman had fired up Chamberlain Street6 and, though later in his evidence he agreed that the gunman could in fact have fired from the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street towards the armoured vehicle,7 at the end of his evidence he again said that to the best of his recollection the man had fired round the corner of Chamberlain Street.8

1 AL6.1

2 Day 389/103-111

3 Day 389/105-106

4 Day 389/106

5 Day 389/142

6 Day 389/138

7 Day 389/144

8 Day 389/145

Peter McLaughlin

58.34 Peter McLaughlin was watching events from 27 Garvan Place in Block 2 of the Rossville Flats, moving between one of the bedrooms overlooking the car park on the north side and the living room overlooking Joseph Place on the south side.1 He gave us the following account in his written statement to this Inquiry:2

“Between five and ten minutes after I first became aware of the shooting, I saw a civilian man armed with a gun inching his way west along the southern gable end of the houses on the eastern side of Chamberlain Street. He particularly stood out because when I first saw him there was a lull in the shooting. There was a group of people sheltering in the fenced play area to the east of the gable end and the gunman was within 60 feet of this group of people. There is attached to this statement marked Photo 3, a photograph of the south gable end of the houses on Chamberlain Street. I saw the gunman along the gable end indicated by the arrow and the fenced play area I have described is in the area marked by the asterisk.

The man seemed to be a fairly young, in his early twenties. I could not see the colour of his hair. He seemed to be wearing casual clothing. I cannot remember the colour of his clothes although he was not wearing anything bright that stood out. I cannot be more specific than that.

I remember seeing the man with a hand pistol in his right hand although I cannot be not certain [sic] about the exact nature of the gun; I do not have the necessary expertise to tell one weapon apart from another. The crowd in the fenced play area also seemed to be aware of him although, it appeared to me, that they had no reason to believe he was armed or any idea of what he was going to do.

As the man reached the south western corner of the gable end he stretched his right arm and wrist around the corner and pointed the gun in a northerly direction up Chamberlain Street. He then fired, to the best of my recollection, between three and five shots. The man did not take aim before he fired. In fact he couldn’t see what he was shooting at. The shots he fired were markedly different from those I had heard previously since they produced low velocity sounds rather than the high pitched crack of high velocity shots. He then put the gun away. I thought to myself, ‘how stupid,’ because this was clearly a danger to the people in the play area. I had a general sense of people in the play area and other people in the flats shouting their disapproval to him. No one moved or went near to him. It would have been dangerous in an open area to move towards a gunman.

I was afraid that soldiers were going to come from any direction towards the gunman and to the other people in the play ground, however, there was no response by the army. I have no recollection of where the man went. I only watched the scene for a couple of minutes. ”

1 AM352.2 2AM352.2-3

58.35 On the photograph to which Peter McLaughlin referred, the gable wall is shown, consistently with his statement, as being the one on the eastern side of Chamberlain Street. As we have described earlier in this report,1 there was a fenced area to the east of this wall, as Peter McLaughlin stated.

1 Paragraph 23.4

58.36 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Peter McLaughlin’s attention was drawn to the evidence given by his father, Charles McLaughlin, who had been watching events from the same flat.1 Charles McLaughlin’s evidence was that he had seen a gunman move along the gable wall on the western side of Chamberlain Street and fire from the end of the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street into the waste ground.2 In other words, his account of this man’s movements was similar to that given by Fr Daly. When shown his father’s account, Peter McLaughlin agreed that it was possible that he had seen the same gunman as his father, and when asked how certain he was as to which gable wall the gunman was at, he said that he could not be absolutely certain, but that for 30 years it had been his recollection that the gunman was against the east gable wall.3

1 AM322.1-2

2 AM322.2-3

3 Day 174/11-12

Joe Nicholas

58.37 We should note at this point that we have considered the evidence of Joe Nicholas, who told us that after he had seen Jackie Duddy lying in the car park and another person shot (in our view Michael Bridge) he saw a man at the south end of Chamberlain Street holding a handgun down by his side, but did not see him fire it or see where the man went.1 In our view this was probably OIRA 4, who on his own account was in that area at that time.

1 AN17.4

Assessment of the civilian evidence of a gunman firing up Chamberlain Street

58.38 There are thus four witnesses whose accounts can be said to support the suggestion that a gunman fired up Chamberlain Street, namely Maureen Gerke (though she did not say that she saw the gunman fire), Bernard Gilmour, Frank Lawton and Peter McLaughlin. However, for the following reasons we are not persuaded that there was, or even might have been, any shooting by a man with a handgun into Chamberlain Street from its southern end.

58.39 There is no doubt that a gunman fired from the end of the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street, as Fr Daly and others have described. Yet none of the four witnesses mentioned in the previous paragraph (nor indeed any other witnesses) suggested either that the gunman they said they saw fired from two different positions, or that one gunman fired from one position and another from a different position. It seems to us that had either of these things occurred, one or more of the witnesses would have been bound to have seen and remembered it. There is no obvious reason why any of the witnesses should have wished to conceal one incident while being prepared to tell us of the other. At the same time, apart from the position in which the four witnesses put the gunman, their accounts of him firing from a corner and of the reaction of the people near him are similar to the descriptions given by Fr Daly and others. Finally, none of the witnesses gave an account in 1972 of a gunman firing up Chamberlain Street. In the light of these matters it is our view that the four witnesses saw the same gunman as Fr Daly, firing from the western end of the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street as Fr Daly described, but that over the years their recollection of where he was has become faulty.

58.40 For these reasons we reject the submission made by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers that OIRA 4 may have fired an additional shot or shots up Chamberlain Street. However, we should note that in addition to relying on the evidence of Maureen Gerke (who they mistakenly suggested gave evidence of seeing a man firing up Chamberlain Street), they also relied on some evidence given by the BBC cameraman Cyril Cave about a sound heard at a certain point in the soundtrack of his footage.1

1 Vid 1 05.12

Cyril Cave

58.41 In Cyril Cave’s oral evidence to this Inquiry1 he gave these answers:

“Q. Is there anything in the previous clips of film that you may be able to spot from them but that we cannot simply by looking at the film?

A. In this sequence?

Q. No, in the whole sequences that I have been showing you?

A. There is one sequence where the troops are running across ground where there is a zip of a bullet which could have been incoming fire. There is only the one zip, you can hear it very close and I would assume that in Father Daly’s statement, he saw a man fire a revolver and that would coincide with that particular sequence in my film. That could have been – I did not notice it until the Inquiry sent me out a clip of the film and I was running through it – because I never had a clip of the film and I was running it through and I noticed this, so I ran it very slowly and there is one, just zip and – as soldiers run across. We would assume the soldiers would not have been firing at their own men, somebody was firing at them. That is the only occasion I heard any or seen any incoming fire – I did not see it, I did not know it existed until I saw that clip.

Q. I wonder if we can identify whereabouts – what is the piece of film you are talking about. Have you seen that as we were looking through it?

A. Yes.

Q. I wonder if you could stop it when we get there.

A. The troops are running towards the camera.

Q. Let us run it forward, please.

(Video played)

A. There, that was the zip. You will have to run it back, it comes earlier in the sequence.

Q. It is just after the sequence with Father Daly. I for my part heard what could be called a zip on the film: that is not a defect in the soundtrack, is it?

A. (Witness shaking head). ”

1 Day 141/118-119

58.42 A little later in his evidence,1 he was asked:

“Q. So we have the picture complete, Mr Cave: your understanding and your confirmation of the order of your film is that the whining shot we hear with the whine of the shot on the film, that of course takes place on the film and took place in your recollection of where the film was, after Father Daly is already escorting the body of the young man carried down Chamberlain Street? ”

1 Day 141/134

58.43 Cyril Cave replied: “That is correct.

58.44 As for Cyril Cave himself, as noted, he said that he was not aware of the sound that he identified as an incoming shot until he was sent a copy of his footage by the Inquiry.1The evidence that he gave in 1972 contains no indication that he was aware of an incoming shot while he was standing in Eden Place filming the soldiers running towards him.2In his written evidence to this Inquiry he stated that while he was filming on the (Eden Place) waste ground he was only aware of shots fired by soldiers:There was no incoming fire that I witnessed.3

1 Day 141/118-119; Day 141/134

2 M13.6

3 M13.26

58.45 We consider first the question of when this part of the film was taken.

58.46 Cyril Cave’s colleague John Bierman edited the BBC footage in 1972, and although the latter told us that he thought that it was in the correct sequence,1 it is clear that in fact the surviving material does not always follow the order in which the footage was filmed on Bloody Sunday. For example, after the section under discussion here, there are shots of soldiers taking an arrested civilian away towards William Street, at a time when APCs were parked in Rossville Street.2 By the time Cyril Cave came to film the soldiers running towards him in Eden Place, those vehicles had moved south to the area immediately north of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

1 Day 111/27-28; Day 111/47-48 2Vid 1 05.35

58.47 In his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry,1 Cyril Cave stated that he filmed events in the following order:

• He filmed Fr Daly leading the group carrying Jackie Duddy up Chamberlain Street and into Harvey Street.

• The BBC crew ran out of film and asked a lady in Harvey Street if they could change their magazines. This they did in her house, where they were also given a cup of tea. Cyril Cave estimated that they were in the house for five to eight minutes.

• They returned to Harvey Street and filmed some ambulances in the Eden Place and Chamberlain Street area.

• They filmed an Army ambulance with a red cross on it as it reversed along Rossville Street.

• He noticed, and then filmed, some prisoners who were being lined up against a wall at Kells Walk.

• Then they filmed “troops running across the waste ground on the east side of Rossville Street … more or less opposite where we were at Eden Place, towards us in Eden Place.2

1 M13.4-6 2M13.6

58.48 It is in the last of these clips that the sound can be heard.

58.49 Cyril Cave told this Inquiry that in one respect he did not think that the sequence of events that he gave in 1972 was correct. He believed that he changed the magazine of his camera (and re-attached a filter to the lens) before taking the shots of Fr Daly.1 He told us2 that the filter on his lens became detached when he was in Columbcille Court, as a result of which he was unable to film properly, and that he was only able to fix it in the house of the lady in Harvey Street. He said in his oral evidence3 that without the filter he “could not have taken any pictures because colour bands from the pictures would have been all completely wrong ”, although he said4 that if something had been happening he might have filmed it anyway, “knowing basically that it probably was useless ”.

1 M13.26; Day 141/88-90; Day 141/92-94

2 M13.25-M13.26

3 Day 141/89

4 Day 141/144-145

58.50 In our view Cyril Cave was right to correct the sequence of events he had given in 1972, and that the visit to the house in Harvey Street must have preceded the filming of Fr Daly and the group carrying Jackie Duddy, and of the soldiers coming across the waste ground. It seems highly unlikely that the crew would have spent any more time in the house than the minimum necessary to change the film and re-attach the filter if they had just seen Fr Daly with the group carrying Jackie Duddy, from which they would have known that a major news event was in progress. Finally, John Bierman, the reporter in the team (to whose evidence we refer below), told us in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that the crew went into the house of the lady in Harvey Street before they filmed Fr Daly. They spent about five minutes in the house, recovering from the effects of CS gas and having a cup of tea. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 John Bierman said repeatedly that they would not have spent time having tea with the lady if they had known that the soldiers had entered the Bogside and that live rounds were being fired, and that it was his “very clear recollection ” that they had gone to the house in Harvey Street before they saw Fr Daly with the group carrying Jackie Duddy.

1 M6.28

2 Day 111/17-23; Day 111/43-45; Day 111/76-80

58.51 According to Cyril Cave, it was before taking the portion of film under discussion that he saw and filmed two ambulances. According to his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry,1 one of the ambulances was pointing up Chamberlain Street towards the Rossville Flats. This must have been the ambulance with registration number 4491 WZ in which Margaret Deery and Michael Bridge were taken from 33 Chamberlain Street. That registration number is faintly visible in the BBC footage2 which would appear to show the ambulance moving forward into Harvey Street after having reversed into Eden Place to turn. According to the second entry in the emergency calls log,3 that ambulance had reached the scene of the emergency at 4.27pm and arrived back at Altnagelvin Hospital at 4.50pm. According to the same statement, Cyril Cave saw the other ambulance moving from Eden Place across the waste ground and out of sight. This would seem to be the ambulance with registration number 7449 WZ shown entering the waste ground in the BBC footage.4 According to the fourth entry in the emergency calls log, that ambulance was called at 4.30pm to deal with two injured people in Rossville Street, and reached the scene of the emergency at 4.37pm. Hence if Cyril Cave was correct in saying that he filmed the ambulances before he filmed the soldiers coming across the waste ground, then the section of the soundtrack which it is suggested may record the sound of an incoming shot cannot have been recorded before about 4.35pm. We have found nothing to suggest that in this respect Cyril Cave’s sequence of events was incorrect.

1 M13.5

2 Vid 1 06.19

3 D500.26-D500.27

4 Vid 1 06.24

Jim Deeney

58.52 Jim Deeney, the sound recordist who accompanied Cyril Cave throughout the day, made a written statement for the Widgery Inquiry, in which he too stated (in our view, for the reasons given above, mistakenly) that it was after seeing Fr Daly and the group carrying Jackie Duddy that the team went into the house in Harvey Street and were there for “about 10 minutes ”.1 He did not mention the sound under discussion in his written evidence to either Inquiry.2 He did not give oral evidence to us.

1 M20.2-M20.3 2M20.3; M20.6-7

John Bierman

58.53 John Bierman, the reporter in the team, told the Widgery Inquiry that he could hear “sporadic ” rifle fire when they were filming from Eden Place, but did not say from which direction it came, and did not refer to hearing any pistol fire.1 John Bierman told the Widgery Inquiry2 that “Soon after ” filming Fr Daly “we moved down to the bottom of Eden Street. We looked across the open ground that f[ronts] the Rossville flats. There was still sporadic rifle fire. We filmed some more scenes from this position, as the film shows.

1 M6.5 2M6.5

58.54 In his written evidence to this Inquiry John Bierman stated that while they were at Eden Place, “we kept hearing the ‘crack, crack, crack ’ of live fire, although because we were still partially surrounded by the houses it was not possible to tell where it was coming from”.1 In his oral evidence, which was given earlier than Cyril Cave’s oral evidence, he said that once he moved on to the waste ground he formed an impression that the firing was coming from the direction from which the soldiers had deployed, and that he did not hear any shots going in the opposite direction at any stage.2 John Bierman gave the following evidence in relation to the portion of film that Cyril Cave believed recorded an incoming round:3

“Q. This is a shot of a whole lot of soldiers going down the back of Chamberlain Street to the south, which looks as if it was taken by your cameraman. Again, apart from what we can see for our own eyes on the film, is there anything you can add to what appeared to be going on at this stage?

A. Not really, no. ”

1 M6.29 3Day 111/26

2 Day 111/12-13

Private INQ 5

58.55 Private INQ 5, a signaller in 7 Platoon, C Company, identified himself as one of the soldiers running towards the camera in the BBC film footage.1 His evidence to this Inquiry was that he had moved on to the Eden Place waste ground after being ordered through Barrier 14, but was forced to take cover because of heavy incoming fire.2 We consider his evidence about this firing later in this report,3 where we conclude that he ran across the Eden Place waste ground at a late stage and did not come under fire.

1 Day 379/15-16; C5.61

2 C5.2

3 Paragraphs 65.28, 65.151–153 and 65.189–191

The absence of stationary Army vehicles in Rossville Street

58.56 No stationary vehicles are present in the parts of Rossville Street shown on the relevant part of the film footage. Army vehicles can be seen moving north. This shows that by the time the events were filmed, Support Company had moved its vehicles to the northern end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

Assessment of the evidence relating to the sound on the film clip

58.57 On the basis of the evidence to which we have referred above, we are of the view that this part of Cyril Cave’s film was taken after Fr Daly went along Chamberlain Street with Jackie Duddy; and indeed after all the casualties had been sustained in Sectors 2, 3, 4 and 5, which was before any ambulances arrived. As we describe later in this report,1 some minutes after these casualties had been shot, there was further shooting by soldiers in Sector 3 at a flat on the western side of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. On the soundtrack of the BBC film footage of the soldiers running towards Chamberlain Street, about a second after the sound that Cyril Cave believed might have been an incoming shot, a loud bang can be heard. In our view this bang was probably the sound of one of those shots.

1 Chapter 123

58.58 There remains the question as to whether Cyril Cave was correct in his belief that the sound under consideration could have been that of an incoming round. As to this it is noteworthy that none of the BBC team, including Cyril Cave himself, said either in 1972 or in their evidence to this Inquiry that they had heard an incoming round. It seems to us that had the sound on the film clip been that of an incoming round, one or more of the team would have heard it and mentioned it in their evidence. Furthermore, by this stage soldiers of C Company, as we discuss later in this report,1 are likely to have reached the south end of Chamberlain Street and gone into number 33 where they made arrests. It seems to us unlikely that a paramilitary gunman would have fired from that area with soldiers close by. While we cannot exclude the possibility that the recording equipment did pick up the sound of an incoming round, it seems to us more likely, despite Cyril Cave’s denial, that this was a fault in the recording.

1 Chapters 65 and 66

Summary of the civilian evidence of a gunman

58.59 We have already commented on the fact that witnesses have given differing descriptions of the gunman that they said they saw at or in the vicinity of the gable wall or garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street. These differing descriptions led to the submission that there may have been more than one gunman operating in the area of the Rossville Flats car park.1For reasons already given, it is our view that there was only one incident of firing, namely as Fr Daly had described, and not another incident of firing into Chamberlain Street from its southern end. However, it is convenient to bring together at this point the descriptions that the witnesses gave of the gunman that they said they saw. We include in this list not only descriptions given by witnesses whose evidence we have considered above but also accounts given by other witnesses which in our view clearly relate to a gunman or possible gunman at the gable wall or garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street.

1 FS7.610

Descriptions of the gunman

Fr Daly

58.60 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Fr Daly said that the gunman was wearing a brown jacket. In his Sunday Times interview,2 Fr Daly said that he thought that the gunman was in his thirties and that he was wearing a brown car coat. In his interview with Peter Taylor,3 he said that the gunman was in his late twenties, early thirties or thereabouts. In his written statement to this Inquiry,4 he said that he could no longer remember the details of the gunman’s age and clothing. In his interview with Jimmy McGovern, he said that the gunman was wearing a brown coat,5 and that it was a three-quarter length brown jacket.6

1 WT4.11

2 H5.59

3 I43-I44

4 H5.6

5 H5.85

6 H5.86

Peter McLaughlin

58.61 In his written evidence to this Inquiry,1Peter McLaughlin told us that the gunman appeared to be in his early twenties and was wearing casual clothing.

1 AM352.3

Robert Brady

58.62 In his statement taken by the RUC,1 Robert Brady recorded that the gunman was about 5ft 7in tall, had black hair hanging just over his ears, and was wearing a black checked overcoat with a fur collar and black trousers.

1 AB71.1

Bernard Gilmour

58.63 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Bernard Gilmour said that the gunman was a big, tall man and that he was wearing a mask.

1 AG38.5

Gerard Grieve

58.64 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Gerard Grieve said that the gunman was approximately 5ft 6in tall, with grey hair and a grey moustache. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Gerard Grieve confirmed that the gunman had grey hair and a grey moustache, and guessed that he may have been in his thirties.

1 AG55.4 2Day 147/64-65

William Harley

58.65 In his interview with Paul Mahon,1 William Harley said that the gunman had black hair and was wearing a black overcoat and black trousers. The overcoat was about knee length. In his written statement to this Inquiry,2 William Harley said that the gunman had black hair and a moustache, and was wearing a black coat and trousers.

1 X4.12.27 2AH36.5

Frank Lawton

58.66 In his interview with Tony Stark,1 Frank Lawton said that the gunman was an elderly man wearing a long raincoat and flat cap. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 he confirmed that this was his recollection of the gunman’s appearance.

1 O8.1 2Day 389/106-107; Day 389/144

Donal Deeney

58.67 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Donal Deeney told us that he seemed to recall that the gunman was wearing a jacket and slacks, which were “probably grey … although he was against a fairly grey background ”.

1 AD26.5

Francis Dunne

58.68 In his NICRA statement,1 Francis Dunne recorded that the gunman was wearing a black overcoat. In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,2 Francis Dunne said that he was under the impression that the gunman was “oldish ”. He would not swear to this but said that the gunman was “50-ish anyway ”. He was asked about the gunman’s clothing and said that he “would have put it as a dark-ish overcoat ”.3

1 AD173.3 3WT8.34

2 WT8.24

58.69 According to John Goddard’s interview note,1 Francis Dunne told him that the gunman was a distinguished-looking man with white hair, and that he was wearing a black overcoat that reached almost to his knees.

1 AD173.46

58.70 In his interview with Paul Mahon,1 Francis Dunne said that the gunman was “very distinctive ”, that he had “whiteish hair, grey, iron grey hair ”, and that he was wearing a long black coat.

1 X4.8.19; X4.8.53

58.71 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Francis Dunne said that the gunman was aged about 50 years and that he was wearing a dark coat, which reached below his knees and was either a “crombie” or a raincoat. He also told us that the gunman had “distinguished, silvery grey hair ”. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 he said that the coat was not an anorak but a “proper overcoat ”, and that the gunman’s hair was “not silvery ” but “iron grey ”.3

1 AD173.27 3Day 90/77

2 Day 90/16

John McCrudden

58.72 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 John McCrudden told us that he could not describe the gunman’s age or appearance, but thought that he had been wearing a jacket rather than an overcoat.

1 AM152.3

Charles McLaughlin

58.73 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Charles McLaughlin said that the gunman appeared to be about 40 years old and was wearing a dark overcoat.

1 AM322.2

Denis Mullan

58.74 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Denis Mullan told us that he saw a man in a duffel coat standing close to the south gable end wall of Chamberlain Street. He had the impression that the man had a weapon and was refusing to use it. Someone in the car park was accusing the man of being useless. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Denis Mullan said that the coat shown in the photograph we have reproduced above3 looked like the duffel coat that he had seen the man at the gable end wearing.

1 AM449.2 3Paragraph 58.15

2 Day 92/23

Joe Nicholas

58.75 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Joe Nicholas said that the gunman whom he encountered at the south end of Chamberlain Street was a youngish man. Joe Nicholas could remember nothing about the gunman’s clothing but did not think that he had been wearing a hat or dark glasses.

1 Day 78/72-73

James Norris

58.76 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 James Norris said that the gunman was wearing “some sort of brown trench coat ”. The coat reached just below the knee and was “double breasted with a belt and was fastened up ”. James Norris did not know how old the gunman was.

1 AN20.4

58.77 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 James Norris was asked whether the man shown in one of the images of the photograph of the gunman taken from the videotape of the BBC programme, to which we have referred above, looked like the gunman whom he had seen. He replied: “I could not be sure, but if it was taken – a photograph of the man at the back of the gable wearing a brown trenchcoat, yes.

1 Day 147/105

Thomas Wilson

58.78 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Thomas Wilson, who at the time of Bloody Sunday was 34, described a man older than he, who was wearing a longish coat and who he thought had grey hair. He gave varying accounts to us of where this man was, but in his NICRA statement2 he had given the following description of what he had seen while looking from his flat on the top floor of Block 2:

“Just before Father Daly lifted the shot man to move him, a man out of a group of 3 or 4 along the facing wall took out a pistol. The others moved back. He shot at the soldiers – low velocity weapon, not more than 2.2. The other 3 stopped him probably fearing that if the soldiers saw him they would fire at all the people hiding in the corner. ”

1 AW19.6 2 AW19.1

Susan North

58.79 In her written statement to this Inquiry,1 Susan North told us that a man had caught her arm near the gable end of 33 Chamberlain Street and said that he had a pistol in his pocket. He was “a little stocky guy ” aged about 30 years with no distinguishing features that she could recall. The man had normal length dark hair, not long flowing hair, and was wearing a sports jacket and trousers with no overcoat. His clothes were not expensive. In her oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Susan North said that this man was older and more heavily built than the typical young stone-thrower. In his second written statement to this Inquiry,3 OIRA 4 told us that he did not remember saying this to Susan North, but that he was likely to have been this man. As noted above,4 his evidence was that after he had gone back to the southern end of Chamberlain Street he followed Fulvio Grimaldi and Susan North from there towards the gap between Blocks 2 and 3 of the Rossville Flats.

1 M35.6 3AOIRA4.19

2 Day 130/37 4Paragraph 58.12

OIRA 4

58.80 OIRA 4 told us that he was 5ft 5in tall, that at the time his hair was dark but not black, that he did not think that he had a moustache on Bloody Sunday, that he had not been wearing a flat cap or spectacles or a mask and that he thought, as we have noted above,1 that he had been wearing a dark blue or black duffel coat.2

1 Paragraph 58.17 2AOIRA4.21; AOIRA4.25-26

Consideration of the evidence describing a gunman

58.81 If these various descriptions are taken at face value and in isolation from the rest of the evidence, it could be said that they indicate that the witnesses saw a number of different gunmen. But once the rest of the evidence of these witnesses is taken into account, together with the reasons we have given for concluding that those who thought that a gunman had fired or pointed a gun into Chamberlain Street were mistaken, we are left only with accounts that in our view show that the gunman seen by Fr Daly was probably the only gunman in the area of the gables at the end of Chamberlain Street. To our minds the explanation for the differing descriptions lies in the fact that people were trying to recall details that they had seen in the middle of fast-moving and frightening events.

58.82 We should add that we have considered the accounts relating to a gunman in Sector 2 given by Patrick Walsh,1 Gerard Doherty,2 Daniel McGowan3 and Joseph McKinney.4 All these seem to us to relate to the gunman seen by Fr Daly, but not to add materially to the evidence that we have discussed above on this topic.

1 AW5.16

2 AD65.18; Day 400/56-58

3 AM255.14; AM255.16

4 AM304.24; X4.26.22

58.83 In these circumstances we have concluded that the gunman seen by Fr Daly was probably OIRA 4.

58.84 According to Fr Daly, the gunman fired two or three shots after Michael Bridge had been injured and as Fr Daly and the others with him were about to stand up and carry Jackie Duddy away.1 According to OIRA 4, he fired two or possibly three shots before Michael Bridge had been injured.2 We have also considered the evidence of others as to the number of shots fired and when they were fired. Some gave accounts to the same effect as Fr Daly, though others gave differing accounts both with regard to the number of shots fired and when they were fired.3 We have considered all this evidence but have no doubt of the accuracy of Fr Daly’s evidence both as to the number of shots fired and when they were fired. OIRA 4’s evidence, unlike much of that given by Fr Daly, was only given many years after the event and in our view he was mistaken in his recollection that he fired before Michael Bridge was injured.

1 H5.19; WT4.11; H5.59; H5.6; H5.85; Day 75/36

2 AOIRA4.6; AOIRA4.17-18

3 The latter witnesses were William Harley X4.12.29; AH36.6; Day 77/29; Day 77/63-64; X4.12.29; X4.12.35; AH36.6; Day 77/28-29; Maureen Gerke AG27.9

Day 133/91; Frank Lawton O8.2; Charles McLaughlin AM322.2; Day 90/101-103; Denis Mullan AM449.2;
Day 92/25-26
; Day 92/45-47; and James Norris AN20.4; Day 147/131-132.

58.85 There is no evidence from any soldiers of Mortar Platoon that any of them saw a gunman approach the corner of the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street or fire from that position. This is understandable if, as OIRA 4 indicated was the case, he did not go beyond the corner, for although in the background of the first of the photographs shown above1 at least one soldier can be seen further along the back (western) wall of the gardens of the Chamberlain Street houses, OIRA 4 would have been out of that soldier’s sight so long as OIRA 4 remained around the corner of the wall.

1 Paragraph 58.15

58.86 We now turn to consider the provenance of this photograph.

58.87 On 19th April 1972, following the publication of the Widgery Report, the BBC broadcast a programme on Bloody Sunday as part of its 24 Hours documentary series. In the course of the programme, as we have explained above,1 a still photograph was displayed of a man said to be in possession of a handgun against the southern wall of the garden of 36 Chamberlain Street. The programme linked this man with the gunman seen by Fr Daly.

1 Paragraph 58.15

58.88 The Inquiry does not have a print or a negative of the original photograph. However, images of the photograph were produced for the Inquiry from the 16mm film of the BBC programme by Alexis Slater of the Forensic Science Service.1

1 E14.001; E14.004-006

58.89 For convenience we show again below one of the images derived from the 16mm film.1

1 E14.005

58.90 None of the photographers who gave evidence to this Inquiry stated unambiguously that he was responsible for taking this photograph.

58.91 At the end of the BBC’s transcript of the 24 Hours documentary,1 a number of items are listed under the heading “OTHER COSTS, seemingly a record of organisations and individuals who provided services or material to the makers of the programme. The photographs used in the programme, identified by a brief description, are included in the list, with each attributed to a photographer, publication or agency. The only apparent match to the photograph under discussion is one described as Gunman by wall . This is attributed, with others, to Fulvio Grimaldi:2

“Troops Fulvio Grimaldi

Gunman by wall " "

Bodies (4 pix) " "

Armoured car " "

Girl screaming " "

Troops running " " ”

1 X1.12.4-20 2X1.12.20

58.92 This Inquiry obtained, principally from the records of the Widgery Inquiry and the archives of the Sunday Times,1 copies of several photographs known to have been taken by Fulvio Grimaldi. Some of these photographs were displayed in the BBC programme and appear to match the descriptions given in the list. However, the photograph described as “Gunman by wall ” was not among those obtained by the Inquiry.

1 KS1.7

58.93 The 24 Hours documentary was produced by David Mills. He recalled, in his evidence to this Inquiry, that Fulvio Grimaldi had taken his film to Dublin to be processed, in order to ensure that none of his material could be seized by the authorities in Northern Ireland. Although David Mills had in the course of his research for the documentary seen some of Fulvio Grimaldi’s photographs in Londonderry, he had thought that one or two might be missing. He had therefore visited the offices of RTÉ (Radio Telefís Éireann) in Dublin, where the photographs had been developed, and found there a copy of the photograph of the gunman, which he used in his documentary. David Mills recalled that he took the print, possibly the only one, and that he might have used it without speaking to Fulvio Grimaldi, who he feared would object to the photograph being broadcast. He could not recall what happened to the print afterwards, and neither the BBC nor RTÉ has been able to assist on this matter.1

1 M108.13; Day 235/19-21

58.94 David Mills’ evidence was that the photograph had been taken by Fulvio Grimaldi, who would have been paid a royalty.1

1 M108.13; Day 235/20

58.95 John Barry, the editor of the Sunday Times Insight Team, also gave evidence to this Inquiry that Fulvio Grimaldi had taken, but had then withheld, the photograph of a gunman at a gable end wall:1

“So far as I recall we found only one sequence of photographs showing an IRA gunman on that day. A pair of pictures showed a man holding a pistol while standing against a gable-wall abutting the car-park of the Rossville Flats. In the later of the images he appeared to be aiming the pistol round the gable-end. These came to light when we noticed photographs were missing from a sequence supplied to us by an Italian photographer named Fulvio Grimaldi. We demanded his contact sheets and identified the missing images. We had skilled photo-technicians work to enlarge and lighten these but they remained too murky to be reproduced in The Sunday Times. ”

1 M3.5

58.96 During his oral evidence John Barry told us that he became aware of the missing photographs after he was told by another photographer that Fulvio Grimaldi had a photograph of a gunman that he had not published.1 John Barry remained confident that there were two photographs, the first being the one that appeared in the BBC documentary. He recalled that in the second the gunman had advanced towards the corner of the wall: “I recall you could see the pistol in profile jutting beyond the end of the gable wall; it was quite a striking image. ”2

1 Day 193/98 2Day 193/98

58.97 Although the photographs were not used in the Sunday Times Insight article of 23rd April 1972, reference was made to them. The journalists quoted Fr Daly’s account of seeing a man firing with a revolver from the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street, and then wrote: “The photographer, Fulvio Grimaldi, also saw this gunman, and took a picture of the gunman. He also is certain that the gunman did not appear until after the Army had killed [Jackie] Duddy and wounded others.1 When asked how confident he was that his attribution of the photographs to Fulvio Grimaldi was correct, John Barry said that while he could have been mistaken, after 30 years, had he been relying solely on his memory, the text of the article made him sure that his team would not have made “so elementary an error so close to the time.2

1 L213 2Day 193/99

58.98 Material from the Sunday Times archive suggests that John Barry’s colleague Peter Pringle interviewed Fulvio Grimaldi during their investigation.1 Peter Pringle himself recalled meeting him a few days after Bloody Sunday.2 The notes of the interview do not refer to a gunman at the wall of 36 Chamberlain Street, and make no reference to the existence of a picture or pictures of such a man.3 However, Peter Pringle did record that: He [Fulvio Grimaldi] took many pix … The material is in Dublin and he cannot get at it before the weekend.”4 As well as being consistent with the evidence of David Mills, this would suggest that at this point the Sunday Times journalists had not seen Fulvio Grimaldi’s photographs, and it may be the case that they had not by then been told that Fulvio Grimaldi’s shots included one of a gunman.

1 M34.21-26; M68.22

2 Day 190/45

3 M34.21-26

4 M34.21

58.99 Peter Pringle could not help this Inquiry as to why the Sunday Times article attributed the photograph of the gunman to Fulvio Grimaldi.1 Philip Jacobson, another of the Insight journalists, was similarly unable to assist further; he said that he did not realise that the attribution of the photograph had been questioned.2

1 Day 190/107-108 2Day 191/151-152

58.100 There are, therefore, two pieces of documentary evidence dating from 1972 that attribute the photograph to Fulvio Grimaldi. The evidence to this Inquiry of David Mills and John Barry suggests that Fulvio Grimaldi took the photograph but wished to withhold it from publication. Indeed, John Barry’s evidence was that there was a second photograph, although his article only referred to “a picture ” in the singular, and David Mills apparently only found one. Peter Pringle’s interview notes provide circumstantial support for David Mills’ account of how he discovered the photograph in Dublin.

58.101 There are two further indications that Fulvio Grimaldi took a photograph of a gunman on Bloody Sunday. In his book Eyewitness Bloody Sunday, which was published in 1997, Don Mullan wrote that Fulvio Grimaldi took a photograph of a man who fired a revolver from the gable end of Chamberlain Street. Susan North, who was with Fulvio Grimaldi on Bloody Sunday, told this Inquiry that she had seen, at the time of the Widgery Inquiry, a photograph taken by Fulvio Grimaldi, which she thought had shown a man with a pistol in his hand among a crowd of people. She was shown the photograph used in the 24 Hours documentary, but said that this was not the one that she had in mind as the gunman in the photograph that she recalled was not alone. She said that she had not seen the 24 Hours photograph until an image taken from the videotape of the programme was shown to her when she came to make her written statement to this Inquiry.1

1 Day 130/27-32

58.102 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Fulvio Grimaldi said that he did not see a gunman in the Rossville Flats car park, and he did not know whether he had taken the photograph.1 He stated that if he had, in fact, taken that photograph it was not intended to be specifically of that man: “If I took that picture, I would liken it to taking a picture of an ant in a flowerbed. The photographer takes a picture of the flowerbed before him and on magnification, one can observe an ant.2 Fulvio Grimaldi said that he did not accept that the photograph, whoever took it, showed a gunman, and added that if he had been aware that he had photographed a gunman he would have said so in his statements.3 He denied that he had taken the photograph and then held it back.4

1 M34.60; Day 131/41-42 3Day 131/43

2 M34.60 4Day 131/47

58.103 Fulvio Grimaldi accused the Sunday Times of “utter and total manipulation ” in attributing a photograph of a gunman to him.1 He also criticised the accuracy of Peter Pringle’s interview notes.2 He accepted that Susan North and Don Mullan had been told or had come to believe that he took a photograph showing a gunman, but denied again that he was aware of having done so.3

1 Day 131/44 3Day 131/44-47

2 M34.74-75

58.104 Despite his denials to this Inquiry, when he was interviewed by the researcher Paul Mahon on 5th July 1998, Fulvio Grimaldi had agreed that he had taken a photograph of a gunman at a wall.1 Paul Mahon told Fulvio Grimaldi that this photograph had “mysteriously gone missing from the public records office ”, but that he had a copy of it “taken off the television ”. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Paul Mahon confirmed that this was the photograph shown in the BBC documentary. He said that he believed that it had gone missing from the Public Record Office because a certain numbered photograph was “classed at the PRO as missing ”. It is true that the records of the Widgery Inquiry deposited in the Public Record Office included a set of photographs taken by Fulvio Grimaldi, numbered from 1 to 26, and that photograph 11 is recorded as missing. However, we do not know in what circumstances that photograph came to be missing, nor is there any proof that the missing photograph was the photograph of the gunman. Later in his interview of Fulvio Grimaldi, Paul Mahon referred again to the photograph of the gunman and asked Fulvio Grimaldi whether he had seen him fire. Fulvio Grimaldi said that he had not.3 The transcript of the interview continues:4

“Paul Mahon: Were you aware that he had a gun, is that why you took the photograph?

Fulvio Grimaldi: I don’t think so, I don’t remember.

Susan North: No, you wouldn’t have been.

Fulvio Grimaldi: But, I don’t think that I was aware, I only remember that people grabbed a person with a revolver.

Susan North: Mmm.

Fulvio Grimaldi: And said ‘you’re mad’, ‘you’re crazy’ and ‘fuck off’ and things like that.

Paul Mahon: Right, right so that’s why you took his picture?

Fulvio Grimaldi: No. I think this happened afterwards because he’s still moving undisturbed or as other people might have noticed that and they really grabbed him and…

Paul Mahon: Right.

Fulvio Grimaldi: … and shouted at him and…

Paul Mahon: Did you take that photograph before you took the photograph of Jack Duddy?

Fulvio Grimaldi: I don’t think so, I think that this picture was taken on the way after Jack Duddy and moved back towards…

Paul Mahon: Chamberlain Street?

Fulvio Grimaldi: No, uh yes, it could be that we moved back first to Chamberlain Street then we moved back to the back of the flats and that’s the time when I tried to climb the wall and she said ‘don’t, don’t’.

Paul Mahon: Yeah right. ”

1 X4.48.45

2 Day 412/52-53

3 X4.48.52-53

4 X4.48.53

58.105 Fulvio Grimaldi was not asked about this interview during his evidence to this Inquiry, as the Inquiry was not in possession of the recording of it at that time.

58.106 Later in this interview, Fulvio Grimaldi explained how he went to Dublin in order to process his photographs, before returning to Londonderry.1 This is consistent with the evidence of David Mills and the interview notes of Peter Pringle, to which we have referred above.

1 X4.48.80-81

58.107 If Fulvio Grimaldi did not take the photograph used by 24 Hours it is not clear who did. Two other photographers were present in the Rossville Flats car park at the relevant time, Gilles Peress and Sam Gillespie. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the photograph should be attributed to either of these men. Gilles Peress told this Inquiry that he had never seen the photograph before,1 and both he and Sam Gillespie said that they were not aware of any gunman firing in the manner described by Fr Daly.2

1 Day 213/112 2WT6.72; Day 213/113-119; Day 142/90

58.108 In our view the evidence considered above establishes that Fulvio Grimaldi took the photograph; and that it was of a gunman at the garden wall at the end of Chamberlain Street. We have earlier concluded that the gunman was probably OIRA 4. It is possible that Fulvio Grimaldi also took another photograph or photographs of the gunman. We formed the impression from his evidence that he was anxious not to be associated with any photograph of paramilitary gunmen.

The gunman described by Monica Barr

58.109 In 1972 Monica Barr was living with her husband in the ground floor flat of 36 Chamberlain Street. As already noted, this is the house at the south-western end of that street.

58.110 Monica Barr gave a Keville interview.1 She also gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.2

1 AB16.11 2AB16.1; Day 148/1-45

58.111 In her Keville interview, Monica Barr said that she had been standing by the landing window at the back of the house. She described seeing Army vehicles coming in and one parking “just behind our house.1 She then described seeing a soldier fire a baton round at a man in a doorway. In our view this was the incident involving Patrick Duffy, which we have discussed earlier in this report.2 Her account continued:3

“Well I did not see the man stepped back then whenever the soldier fired the bullet the man went right on back and I did not see the man come out again I took it that the bullet hit the man and the soldier he came away then. Then there was a couple of soldiers then came round the side of the personnel carrier towards just near the window where we were standing. One of them I saw lift a rifle and I said to my husband he’s going to shoot he’s going to shoot but at the same time I just kept hoping you know I was just imagining things and he lifted the rifle and fired and this was the first shot that I saw fired and then I heard a scream and I took it then that someone had been hurt then there was a few other shots fired then by the soldiers and there was a soldier then on the far side of the personnel carrier from me and he was more to the back of the personnel carrier and he looked up towards the flats and he fired three shots. Well then after this there was no one whatsoever at the windows and after this there was a couple more shots fired and we heard a lot of screams and he fired three shots. Well then after this there was no one whatsoever at the windows and after this there was a couple more shots fired and we heard a lot of screams and we just took it people were being hurt because normally a few times down there we

hear gunfire and people are that used to it they do not scream unless someone has been hurt. Then on the window above the eighth floor I saw a man at one of the windows and he had a gun in his hand and he fired down one shot and he had his hand back in the window and he went to lift his head back and one of the troops fired a shot which landed above his head up at the top of the window and then I happened to look around and there seemed to be a lot of troops around. Over opposite in the garage opposite there was troops lined along there and they had no protective helmets they had just on their berets with no other shots being fired towards them. ”

1 AB16.11

2 Paragraph 55.303

3 AB16.12

58.112 In her written statement to this Inquiry1 Monica Barr told us that she had a recollection of seeing a hand stick out of an open window on the eighth floor of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats: “I think the flat was approximately in the middle of Block 1 but I am unable to be more precise. ” She continued:

“The window, as I recall it, was tilted inwards at the top and outwards at the bottom. The hand which was holding a pistol appeared from over the top of the window pane and pointed downwards. I remember one shot being fired from the pistol. The shot had a ‘pop’ sound and was certainly different from the other shots I had heard earlier. Almost immediately I heard a ‘crack’ and saw the wood at the top of the window frame splinter where I presume a bullet fired by a soldier below the flats had hit. At around the same time the hand disappeared. I think there may have been net curtains over the window as I am unable to describe the face or shape of the individual who fired the shot from the Rossville Flats. ”

1 AB16.3

58.113 In her oral evidence to this Inquiry, Monica Barr gave a similar account of seeing this gunman, though she said that the gunman was on the ninth, not the eighth, floor.1 The difference is important, because on the eighth floor the windows were set back behind the balcony. In her Keville interview, Monica Barr had described the gunman as being “on the window above the eighth floor ”, which to our minds is likely to be a description of a window on the ninth floor.

1 Day 148/9

58.114 Monica Barr was closely questioned by counsel for the majority of the families and wounded, who among other things suggested that what she had heard was the firing of a handgun much closer to where she was and that it would have been difficult for anyone to have fired over the top of one of the tilting windows of the Rossville Flats. Monica Barr maintained that she had seen a gunman fire from the position she had described:1

“Q. What you said, to be fair to you in your evidence today, was that you heard – this pop seemed to occur, it seemed to happen when the pistol came out of the window. When you say it ‘seemed’ to happen, can we take it from that that you are not sure that it did happen at the same time?

A. Well, it is how I remember it now.

Q. What I have to ask you is whether it is possible that you heard a pistol shot when you were looking out of your window; you saw a man in the upper flats, on the top floor of Rossville Flats, perhaps with a camera, perhaps with a bottle. You saw a soldier fire in that direction and you formed the mistaken impression that the man or the hand at the window was firing a gun when in fact it was a man just under your own window; is that possible?

A. No, it is not possible. I saw the man on the top floor with a gun and I heard the pop when he fired. ”

1 Day 148/32-33

58.115 The representatives of the majority of the families and wounded submitted that Monica Barr could “only be mistaken in her recollection.1 They drew attention to the difficulty of firing over the top of the tilting window, and to the fact that no soldier in Mortar Platoon claimed to have seen or reacted to a gunman at the top of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

1 FS1.1367

58.116 Monica Barr’s original account was given soon after the event, when her recollection would have been fresh; and there is no doubt that she believed that she had seen a gunman fire one shot from the ninth floor of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. However, she also believed that a soldier had fired back almost immediately and hit the window. We have considered whether this could have been one of the shots fired by Private T, though he was not aiming at this window; but the difficulty with this possibility is that earlier in the account that Monica Barr gave in 1972, she described a soldier firing up at the flats, which might well have been Private T. It is the fact that no soldier of Mortar Platoon claimed to have seen or reacted to a gunman at the top of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats; and no soldier apart from Private T admitted firing up at Block 1. Had a soldier seen and fired at a gunman in this block he would in our view have reported that he had done so. It is of course possible that Monica Barr was mistaken in believing that a shot from a soldier had hit the window in question, but if she was so mistaken, this casts some doubt on the accuracy of her account as a whole.

58.117 In the end we are left in doubt as to whether Monica Barr did witness a gunman firing from Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. It is possible that she did so, but to our minds it is equally possible that she was mistaken.

58.118 If Monica Barr did see a gunman, it is clear from her 1972 account that the gunman only fired after the soldiers had opened fire in the car park area. On the basis of Monica Barr’s evidence there is thus no question of the shot fired by this gunman having precipitated what happened in that area.

58.119 No-one has admitted firing a shot from a window in Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, and no paramilitary organisation has accepted responsibility for the firing of such a shot.

The gunman described by Billy Gillespie

The Sunday Times notes

58.120 According to interview notes compiled by Peter Pringle of the Sunday Times Insight Team and dated 6th April 1972:1

“billy gillespie, 22. bro of above. helped to carry mrs deery into 33 chamberlain st with michael bridge. went with bridge into the car park between the flats and saw duddy shot. he threw some stones at the soldier on the corner of the flats and saw bridge shout at the army and get shot.

n.b. he also claims that he saw a gunman on the 5th floor of the flats with an M1 carbine. he says the gunman fired seven shots and had three shots returned at him by the army. he went up to see if there were any bullet marks where he had seen the man and there weren’t any. Story suspect and as yet unconfirmed but as far as i know we haven’t had statements from people who came out of chamberlain st. at that end as the army moved into the car park area. let’s face it no one in their right minds would have done. ”

1 AG34.17

58.121 “Bro of above ” indicated that the subject of this note was the brother of Daniel Gillespie, who sustained an injury in circumstances that we consider later in this report,1when discussing the events of Sector 4.

1 Paragraphs 104.165–202

58.122 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Billy Gillespie told us that he had no recollection “at all ” of talking to journalists and denied both that he had seen a gunman on the fifth floor of the Rossville Flats and that he had told journalists that he had.

1 Day 84/162-164

58.123 The evidence of Peter Pringle satisfies us that this note is an accurate record of what he was told by Billy Gillespie.1 This conclusion is supported by the fact that other details in the note, such as the reference to Billy Gillespie having helped to carry Margaret Deery into 33 Chamberlain Street, correspond with the evidence that Billy Gillespie gave to this Inquiry.

1 Day 190/37-42

58.124 Peter Pringle was asked during the course of his oral evidence to this Inquiry why he thought at the time that the account of the gunman was suspect. His answer was:1

“Well, one of the reasons is that we had never heard a story like this, we did not hear another one like this. The second reason is that firing from flats was a very exposed position and I think I have a note on that. That is reflected in the last sentence here, ‘let us face it, no-one in their right minds would have done this’.”

1 Day 190/40-41

58.125 Notwithstanding this, in the Insight article published by the Sunday Times on 23rd April 1972 there was the following passage:1

“… one civilian, whose name we agreed to withhold, told us that he did see someone with a carbine firing at the soldiers from the 5th floor of the flats. The man fired seven shots and three were returned at him. This gunman corresponds exactly with the man at whom Soldier O said he fired three shots and hit. ”

1 L213

58.126 It seems to us that the civilian referred to in this passage must have been Billy Gillespie, since Peter Pringle told us that he heard the account from only one source.

58.127 As to the comment that the gunman corresponded exactly with the man at whom Sergeant O said he fired three shots, and whom he said he hit, there is nothing in Billy Gillespie’s account to indicate that the gunman was hit, nor anything in Sergeant O’s accounts to the effect that the gunman fired seven shots, though in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry he had said that the gunman was “triggering it off fairly fast ”.1 At the same time, it is noteworthy that, according to Sergeant O, the gunman at whom he fired three times after seeing the flash of his weapon was on the lower balcony of Block 3 of the Rossville Flats, which was on the same level as the fifth floor of Block 2. That level was also regarded as the fifth floor in Block 3, although because that block was built on higher ground it was in fact only the third level, as can be seen in the photograph below.2

1 WT13.30 2AG27.6; GEN3.14

58.128 There is therefore some correspondence between the account given by Sergeant O of seeing a man with a weapon like an M1 carbine or small rifle on the lower balcony of Block 3 and firing three shots at him, and the account given by Billy Gillespie to Peter Pringle.

58.129 The representatives of the majority of the families and wounded pointed out that no other civilian witness or journalist corroborated Billy Gillespie’s account, and that the gunman described in that account would have been in a very exposed position. They submitted that “The story as related to Peter Pringle bears all the hallmarks of an invented account, perhaps given to impress a journalist.1

1 FS1.1368

58.130 It is true that the gunman would have been in a very exposed position, but the same could be said of the gunman seen by Fr Daly. It is also true that there is no other civilian or journalistic evidence to support what Billy Gillespie said, but we do not accept that this should necessarily lead us to reject it, though it leaves us, like Peter Pringle, less than certain of its accuracy. On his own account,1 Billy Gillespie was a rioter and witnessed some of the shootings in Sector 2, and to our minds, though possible, it is unlikely that he would have invented an account of seeing a paramilitary gunman firing at the Army.

1 AG33.1

58.131 In these circumstances we have concluded that Billy Gillespie probably did see a gunman firing from the lower balcony of Block 3; and that his account to Peter Pringle supports the evidence given by Sergeant O in this regard.

Whether Eileen Collins saw the body of a gunman

58.132 At this point it is convenient to deal with a submission made by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers to the effect that Eileen Collins saw the body of this gunman.1

1 FS7.1495

58.133 According to an article written by Tony Parker and published in the New Statesman and Society at the time of the 20th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in January 1992,1 Eileen Collins, using her maiden name Eileen Shiels, told him:

“Where we lived, my flat was on the first floor of the block, so I went round and up the back staircase to it. Inside the children were all safe: when he’d heard the shouting and shooting, the young boy looking after them’d made them all take shelter in the sort of boiler cupboard we had. All of them were wild with excitement, they wanted me to let them go out on the balcony and watch what was happening. I thought ‘Well I’ll look out of the windows first to see if it’s safe’. And still to this day I can’t tell what I saw without the horror of it coming back to me. Right there outside my window lying on the balcony was a dead man, crumpled up with blood all over him. I straight away pulled the curtains together and told the children they weren’t to open them: then I ran out of the door along the corridor, to go down and see if I could fetch someone to help. At the bottom of the staircase at the front was another body lying. I had to step over it to get out, and it was someone I recognised: it was young Tony Doherty’s father, who I knew. ”

1 AC72.11; L244.1-3

58.134 Eileen Collins’ flat was 20 Garvan Place.1 This flat was in Block 2 of the Rossville Flats, on the first floor and right at the end nearest to Block 1.2

1 AC72.1 2GEN3.13

58.135 In her oral evidence to this Inquiry, Eileen Collins told us that she had no recollection of talking to Tony Parker and that what he had written about her seeing a dead man outside her window on the balcony was “lies:… there was no body outside my apartment.1

1 Day 161/120-122; Day 161/151-154; Day 161/167-169

58.136 In our view Eileen Collins was interviewed by Tony Parker and may well have given him an account of seeing a dead man outside her flat. However, we doubt the accuracy of this account, so far as the position of the body is concerned.

58.137 In her written evidence to this Inquiry1 Eileen Collins had told us that on her way into her flat she saw an injured man behind a door receiving attention from an Order of Malta Ambulance Corps volunteer, but was unable to say whether he had been shot. In her oral evidence2 she said that she did not think that he had been shot, but was not sure.

1 AC72.3 2Day 161/157-158

58.138 As we discuss later in this report,1 one of the casualties in Sector 3 was Kevin McElhinney, and there is evidence to the effect that after being shot and mortally wounded in Rossville Street he was taken into the lobby at the south-west end of Block 1, and then carried up the stairs leading from that lobby by the Order of Malta Ambulance Corps volunteer James Norris and the photographer Liam Mailey.2

1 Paragraphs 86.365–469 2AN20.3; AN20.19-21; AN20.25

58.139 In order to reach her flat, Eileen Collins told us that she went up these stairs and crossed the walkway to Block 2.1 In none of her accounts did Eileen Collins suggest that she saw more than one casualty outside or near her flat.

1 AC72.3

58.140 There are two other considerations.

58.141 Firstly, as is explained more fully later in this report,1 following a ruling of the Tribunal dated 1st June 2001,2 the Inquiry sought and obtained access to a substantial quantity of intelligence material held by the RUC and other agencies in relation to witnesses or those who might become witnesses in the Inquiry. Relevant documents obtained in the course of this exercise were disclosed to the interested parties subject to such redactions as were necessary to comply with our obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. A small amount of this material related directly to the events of Bloody Sunday but the great majority was relevant only to the extent that it contained information about the membership of paramilitary organisations in Londonderry at the time of Bloody Sunday and in the months thereafter. The nature of the material is such that we believe it to be highly likely that if a paramilitary gunman had been killed on Bloody Sunday some reference to his death would appear in it. However, there is no indication in any of the material provided to us that such an event occurred.

1 Paragraphs 151.21–22 2A2.17

58.142 Secondly, we accept the evidence given by Fr Daly that it amounted to “offensive nonsense ” to suggest that there could have been secret burials of people killed by the Army on Bloody Sunday.1 We do not believe that the local community would have considered it desirable or acceptable to try to conceal such deaths, nor do we believe that it would have been possible to conceal them.

1 Day 75/51-55

58.143 In these circumstances we are of the view that the body that Eileen Collins saw was that of Kevin McElhinney; and that what Tony Parker recorded may have been the result of misunderstanding by him or a degree of exaggeration by her, or a combination of both these things.

58.144 It remains to say that there is no evidence of any kind that suggests any link between the body Eileen Collins said that she saw near her flat, and the gunman that Sergeant O said that he had shot towards the south-west end of the lower balcony of Block 3 of the Rossville Flats, a location that was over 60 yards away, and four floors up, from Eileen Collins’ flat in Block 2.

The gunman described by Gunner 030

58.145 Gunner 030 was a soldier in 22 Lt AD Regt. According to his first Royal Military Police (RMP) statement, timed at 2343 hours on 2nd February 1972,1 he was on duty at the Platform on the City Walls. This Platform is shown on the following map and photograph.

1 B1590

58.146 In this statement Gunner 030 recorded that he was on duty with Sergeant 001. He stated that he heard the sound of baton rounds and gas cartridges being fired, which seemed to be coming from the area of Rossville Street/William Street: “By about 1620 hrs the crowd had built up to about 2–300 people situated around Rossville Flats. At this time the sound of baton guns being fired grew closer. ” Gunner 030’s statement continued:1

Suddenly I heard one (1) low-velocity shot. I then heard a number of low-velocity shots. It was then I saw a youth standing firing a pistol. He was in between Blocks Nos 1 & 2 Rossville Flats. Taking cover slightly between Block No 2. There were about 10–15 people crowding around him, therefore I did not shoot for fear of hitting a member of the crowd. The gunman was wearing a brown jacket, faded blue jeans and he had long dark well kept hair.

At this time I saw a body lying on the floor by the telephone box, at the far end to the right of No 2 Block. I had heard no high velocity fire at this time. ”

1 B1590-B1591

58.147 Gunner 030 gave another account in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry.1

“Suddenly I heard one low velocity shot. I said to soldier 001 that this was not a baton round but a low velocity shot. Then I heard a number of low velocity shots and I could see a youth who was holding what I could clearly see was a pistol from which I could see puffs of smoke coming in the gaps between blocks 2 and 3 of Rossville Flats. I could not shoot him as there was a crowd of about 10 to 15 people gathered round him. I could see quite clearly that he was wearing a brown jacket, faded blue jeans and he had long dark well kept hair, he was about 75 yards from me and I had a good view of him from the platform. ”

1 B1599

58.148 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, there was the following passage:1

“Q. Then the low velocity shots – where did they appear to come from?

A. I could not say exactly where it came from.

Q. You cannot say right, left, or –

A. I believe it would be to my right.

Q. Did you observe its strike or not?

A. No, sir.

Q. After that shot did you hear any more?

A. Yes, sir, I heard a number of low velocity shots coming from my right.

Q. How long after the first ones?

A. Just a matter of seconds, sir.

Q. And how many more came?

A. I would say five or six rounds, sir, were fired.

Q. Could you see anyone who was firing?

A. Yes.

Q. Whom did you see?

A. It was a youth, sir.

Q. Where about?

A. Between Blocks 2 and 3, sir, of Rossville Flats.

LORD WIDGERY: You are seeing it from my side, are you not?

A. Yes.

LORD WIDGERY: Just show me where he was.

The WITNESS: I was about there, sir, and he was between there that he came through, from behind.

Mr. GIBBENS: The south-east corner.

LORD WIDGERY: Is he inside?

A. There is a small wall round there about three feet high and he was behind there, sir.

Mr. GIBBENS: What was he doing?

A. He was firing towards William Street.

Q. Was he firing up the side, parallel with Block 3 of Rossville Flats? I do not quite understand.

A. Something like that. If you are between Block 2 and 3 you can see William Street.

Q. I am afraid I do not quite understand. This is William Street here.

A. Yes, that is William Street. He was between here.

Q. Take the pointer and give us his line of fire.

A. His line of fire would be from about there across that way.

LORD WIDGERY: He was inside the courtyard, was he?

A. Yes, this small wall here. He was behind that wall kneeling down.

Q. You were looking at it through that alleyway between the two blocks?

A. Yes.

Mr. GIBBENS: That is behind the small wall inside the courtyard?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Could you see what he was using to fire with?

A. I seen a small pistol, sir, but what type it was I do not know.

Q. Could you see further into the courtyard, what he was firing at?

A. No, sir, but after I looked back I seen a body lying there. It was a civilian, but whether he had been shot or not I do not know.

Q. Was it the same man lying, a body there, or was the man still upright?

A. He was lying down there.

Q. The body was lying down, but what happened to the man with the pistol?

A. Well, I was going to shoot, but there was too many round him, you know. In case I hit a civilian, an ordinary person, I did not shoot. After that I turned round and he was gone.

Q. Had you seen him before he went or after he went?

A. This was before he went, sir.

Q. You saw the body before he went?

A. Yes, sir. ”

1 WT16.25-26

58.149 Later in his oral evidence Gunner 030 told the Widgery Inquiry that he had heard self-loading rifle (SLR) fire “after the first set of pistol shots ”, coming from what he described as “the back end ”, by which he said that he meant the area of William Street and Little James Street.1

“Q. Did you hear any SLR fire from right inside the area of the forecourt of the flats?

A. No.

Q. You didn’t?

A. I couldn’t see.

Q. You could not identify any as coming from that area?

A. No.

Q. How far away would you be from the corner of blocks 2 and 3?

A. To there?

Q. Yes. About 30 yards?

A. Forty to fifty yards.

Q. I think the measurement has been given before as thirty metres, but would it be around forty metres?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You were forty metres, or so, from the corners of the inter-section of blocks 2 and 3?

A. Yes.

Q. And at no stage did you identify SLR fire coming from that area?

A. It was coming from the back end.”

1 WT16.32-33

58.150 Gunner 030 told the Widgery Inquiry that he was within shouting distance of an Army Observation Post (OP) which was equipped with a radio,1but that at the time neither he nor Sergeant 001 shouted any report of seeing the man with the gun. He said that this was because he and the sergeant were too busy looking at other places, but agreed that there could hardly be anything more important than reporting gunmen at the time they were supposed to be present. He said that he had reported seeing the gunman to his officer later on, at a time when ambulances had arrived. Gunner 030 also told the Widgery Inquiry that he did not know that soldiers had come down Rossville Street and were in the area; and that the first soldiers he saw were in Glenfada Park North.2

1 This was called Charlie OP. We refer to Charlie OP again in the context of Sector 5, where we provide a photograph (paragraph 116.29).

2 WT16.30-31

58.151 Gunner 030 gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.1In our view he had little clear recollection of events. He told us himself that he might have mixed up events that had occurred on Bloody Sunday with other things that had happened when he was in Northern Ireland.2In view of this, we consider that his evidence to us, where it differed from the accounts that he gave in 1972, is unreliable, though, as we point out below, there are significant difficulties with those accounts. He did say to us, however, that he stood by the accounts that he had given in 1972.3

1 B1612.001; Day 366/79

2 Day 366/81

3 Day 366/82

58.152 From his vantage point on the Platform, Gunner 030 would have had a limited view through the gap between Blocks 2 and 3 of the Rossville Flats, and would have been able to see a portion of the low wall running parallel to the northern side of Block 2 of the Rossville Flats and a small portion of the car park. This can be demonstrated from stills taken from the Channel 4 Secret History documentary Bloody Sunday, which was made by Praxis Films Ltd and first broadcast on 5th December 1991. By the time this documentary was made, the Rossville Flats had been demolished, and so the makers used archive footage, from which the two stills reproduced below have been taken. The date on which this footage was filmed is not known, but the physical features shown in it appear to be as they were on Bloody Sunday.

58.153 Since Gunner 030 would not have been able to see the gap between Blocks 1 and 2 of the Rossville Flats from his vantage point, it seems that his reference to this gap in his RMP statement must have been an error for the gap between Blocks 2 and 3, which, as can be seen, he corrected in his evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.

58.154 According to his RMP statement, it was “at this time ” that Gunner 030 saw a body lying “on the floor ” by the telephone box.1This must be a reference to the telephone box that was situated at the southern end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. There was a body in that position, that of Bernard McGuigan, who was shot dead in Sector 5. In his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry,2Gunner 030 recorded that he had been shown photographs of the body of Bernard McGuigan lying near the telephone box, and he confirmed that this was the body that he had seen. Representatives of some of the soldiers suggested that this identification might not be reliable,3but we see no good reason for doubting it. However, as will be seen later in this report,4this shooting took place after all or virtually all the events of Sector 2. Nevertheless, on an examination of the whole of the evidence that he gave in 1972, we consider it possible that Gunner 030 may not have intended to say that he saw this body at exactly the same time as he saw the gunman. It must be borne in mind that all the events of Sectors 2 to 5 took place within a few minutes.

1 B1591 3FS8.1125-1126

2 B1600 4Paragraphs 118.207–213 and 227–261

58.155 It was submitted on behalf of the majority of the families and wounded that we should reject the account Gunner 030 gave of seeing, through the gap between Blocks 2 and 3 of the Rossville Flats, a man firing a pistol in the direction of William Street.1

1 FR1.95-FR1.100

58.156 There are significant difficulties with the evidence that Gunner 030 gave in 1972. He did not report seeing the “pistol man ” at the time. His sergeant, Sergeant 001, who was near him on the Platform, made no mention of seeing this pistol man, or that Gunner 030 told him that he had seen one. Lieutenant 227, who was stationed at Charlie OP,1gave no evidence of any report and did not recall him being on the Platform.2Major 159, the Battery Commander, gave no evidence of a report being made to him. In his RMP statement, Gunner 030 described the pistol man as standing between the blocks of the Rossville Flats; while in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry he said that the pistol man was kneeling behind a low wall, which would appear to be the low wall running along the side of Block 2. Gunner 030 does not appear to have heard any high velocity firing in Sector 2, of which there was on any view a large amount, though this may be explicable on the basis that the Rossville Flats might have dampened the sound of high velocity fire and made it harder to recognise or appear to come from further away. He gave accounts of hearing and seeing Thompson sub-machine gun fire in Glenfada Park North, which we consider later in this report,3but which in our view cannot be correct for the reasons we give there. He gave no account of seeing or hearing military firing from the south-east corner of Glenfada Park North, of which, as we explain later,4there was a considerable amount, even though this was more or less directly in front of his position.

1 B2184 3Paragraphs 119.128–141

2 Day 371/116; Day 371/118 4Chapter 119

58.157 In these circumstances we have grave doubts about the reliability of Gunner 030’s accounts of seeing a pistol man firing in Sector 2. Had he done so, we consider that he would have immediately reported what he had seen, but he made no report. We return to the evidence of Gunner 030 when considering the events of Sector 5,1where we express the view that Gunner 030 (and Sergeant 001) were probably keeping their heads down most of the time, but were loath to admit this was what they had done; or, or as well, were simply wholly muddled and confused about what they saw and heard. We should add that we have considered the possibility that Gunner 030 saw the same gunman as Fr Daly, firing from the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street. However, since his accounts are not consistent with the other evidence of that incident, which we have discussed above, and since we are satisfied that he would not have been able to see the garden wall from his vantage point, this possibility can be rejected. We should also note that the possibility exists that Gunner 030 saw the gunman that, according to Susan North, Fulvio Grimaldi may have photographed, with a pistol in his hand among a crowd of people, as we have discussed above, but this is no more than speculation.

1 Paragraphs 119.128–141

58.158 We have concluded that it would be unwise to rely on the accounts given by Gunner 030 of seeing a pistol man firing. It remains to note that Sergeant O’s evidence was that he had seen a man firing a pistol from behind a car, not from behind a low wall and not surrounded by other people; and no other soldier who was deployed in Sector 2 gave evidence of seeing a man with a handgun in a crowd as described by Gunner 030.

The evidence of Patrick Gerard Doherty

58.159 Finally, we have considered the account given by Patrick Gerard Doherty, who told us in his written statement to this Inquiry1that on seeing the APCs come in, he had run from the waste ground, through the Eden Place alleyway, down to the southern end of Chamberlain Street. There he saw someone carrying a woman who he afterwards learned was Margaret Deery. He then ran to the area beneath Block 3 of the Rossville Flats. From there he saw soldiers firing rubber bullets into the crowd in the car park. He told us that at this stage, which according to his account was before Jackie Duddy had been shot and before live rounds had been fired:

“There were two other boys standing in between the walls with me. Suddenly, one of them shouted ‘look, there’s a sticky bastard and he’s got a short’. By this he meant that there was a member of the Official IRA carrying a handgun. I immediately started looking into the crowd in the middle of the car park, particularly at peoples hands but I couldn’t see anyone carrying a gun. The boy who had shouted was hysterical and moved to climb over the wall into the car park – I remember the other boy grabbed his collar to restrain him. ”

1 AD96.2-3

58.160 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Patrick Gerard Doherty told us that the boy had not indicated where he had seen the man with the handgun.1

1 Day 85/10; Day 85/54-55

58.161 In our view Patrick Gerard Doherty was mistaken in his recollection of the order of events, as he acknowledged might be the case.1For the reasons we have given earlier in this report,2we are of the view that Margaret Deery was shot soon after Jackie Duddy, so that at least two live rounds had been fired by the time Patrick Gerard Doherty saw her. Thus we reject the submission of the representatives of a number of soldiers that his account indicates that there was a man in the car park holding a handgun at a stage before Jackie Duddy was shot.3In our view, given the other evidence that we have considered above, Patrick Gerard Doherty probably heard someone drawing attention to OIRA 4, the gunman seen by Fr Daly, at or about the time when OIRA 4 was moving along the garden wall of 36 Chamberlain Street after the shooting of Margaret Deery.

1 Day 85/24 3FS8.1140

2 Chapters 55 and 56

The man seen in Gilles Peress’s photograph

58.162 We have earlier in this report shown the photograph taken by Gilles Peress of the group round the body of Jackie Duddy. We reproduce below an enhanced copy and enhanced detail of this photograph, prepared by Alexis Slater.1

1 E15.018; E15.019

58.163 It was submitted on behalf of the majority of represented soldiers that the crouching man was holding what may well be a firearm ”.1 Billy Gillespie and Donal Deeney identified this man as Brown, and OIRA 4 told us that he was quite sure that Patrick Brown would never have had a gun.2 Patrick Brown made a written statement to this Inquiry,3 in which he expressed the view that the crouching figure may have been him. He was not asked whether he had anything in his hand.4 Patrick Brown gave no oral evidence to this Inquiry. He was due to do so in February 2001 but was too ill to attend. He died on 3rd May 2001. These representatives submitted that the man was clearly removing something, and the probability is that it was a weapon, the only thing that would need removing ”.5 Representatives of other soldiers submitted that the photograph raised the probability that a weapon of some kind was held by the man in the photograph, and that it is at least a realistic possibility that the weapon being held was a firearm.6

1 FS7.1469

2 Day 84/197; Day 86/80; AOIRA4.21

3 AB98.1-2

4 AB98.6

5 FS7.1473

6 FS8.1150

58.164 While it appears that Patrick Brown might have been holding something, we are not persuaded either that it was a firearm or that he was trying to remove something. In our view it is unlikely that anyone would be handling a firearm in full view of soldiers only a few yards away.