Skip to Content | Accessibility Statement | Site Map

Report of the The Bloody Sunday Inquiry
- Volume VI - Chapter 104



The casualties in Glenfada Park North

Chapter 104: The casualties in Glenfada Park North

Contents

Paragraph

Joe Friel 104.1

Biographical details and prior movements 104.2

Medical and scientific evidence 104.4

Where and when Joe Friel was shot 104.6

Where Joe Friel went after he was shot 104.53

Where Joe Friel was then taken 104.69

Barrier 20 104.72

Consideration of the Barrier 20 evidence 104.98

What happened to CIV 1 and Eugene O’Donnell 104.103

The allegation that Joe Friel admitted that he had been armed when he
was shot 104.123

What Joe Friel was doing when he was shot 104.138

Michael Quinn 104.139

Biographical details and prior movements 104.140

Medical and scientific evidence 104.142

Where and when Michael Quinn was shot 104.145

What Michael Quinn was doing when he was shot 104.163

What happened to Michael Quinn after he was shot 104.164

Daniel Gillespie 104.165

Biographical details 104.165

Medical evidence 104.166

Where, when and how Daniel Gillespie was wounded 104.167

Jim Wray 104.203

Biographical details and prior movements 104.203

Where and when Jim Wray was shot 104.205

Medical and scientific evidence 104.209

What Jim Wray was doing when he was shot 104.233

Whether Jim Wray was shot while he was on the ground 104.239

Expert evidence concerning the wounds and the clothing 104.243

The civilian evidence 104.289

Assessment of the evidence given in 1972 and 1973 104.317

Criticisms of the civilian evidence 104.340

Later civilian evidence relating to Jim Wray’s death 104.365

Assessment of the later evidence of those who gave accounts in 1972
and 1973 104.397

Other civilian witnesses 104.398

Further submissions on behalf of soldiers 104.418

Whether Jim Wray fell because he was shot 104.437

The evidence of Private 027 104.442

Conclusions on the shooting of Jim Wray 104.448

Where Jim Wray was taken 104.456

William McKinney 104.457

Biographical details and prior movements 104.458

Where William McKinney was shot 104.459

Medical and scientific evidence 104.465

When William McKinney was shot 104.475

What William McKinney was doing when he was shot 104.476

Where William McKinney was taken after he was shot 104.479

Joe Mahon 104.480

Biographical details and prior movements 104.481

Medical and scientific evidence 104.483

Whether Joe Mahon was hit by a bullet that had hit William McKinney 104.485

Where Joe Mahon was when he was shot 104.488

What Joe Mahon was doing when he was shot 104.491

Where Joe Mahon was taken after he was shot 104.493

Patrick O’Donnell 104.494

Biographical details and prior movements 104.495

Medical and scientific evidence 104.496

Accounts given by Patrick O’Donnell 104.499

Accounts of other witnesses 104.512

Where and when Patrick O’Donnell was shot 104.515

What Patrick O’Donnell was doing when he was shot 104.519

What happened to Patrick O’Donnell 104.521

Summary of the initial shooting in Glenfada Park North 104.522

Joe Friel

104.1 Joe Friel was wounded by a shot in the chest when he was in Glenfada Park North.

Biographical details and prior movements

104.2 Joseph Friel, commonly known as Joe, was 20 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He was single, lived with his family in the Rossville Flats, and worked as a tax inspector for the Inland Revenue.1He admitted to this Inquiry at a late stage that he had been on the civil rights march on 30th January 1972, having joined it close to the Bogside Inn. He subsequently made his way to Glenfada Park North.2However, as will be seen below, there are doubts about how and when Joe Friel got to Glenfada Park North.

1 Day 48/48-49

2 Day 155/37-38; AF34.67; FS1.2287-2288; CS6.300-301

104.3 Joe Friel told the Widgery Inquiry that he was wearing a green Parka coat with a hood, a light blue shirt and light grey trousers.1In his evidence to this Inquiry, Joe Friel stated that this was correct and added that he was also wearing black socks and black shoes.2

1 WT6.40

2 Day 155/146

Medical and scientific evidence

104.4 Joe Friel underwent surgery at Altnagelvin Hospital during the night of Bloody Sunday, and was discharged on 10th February 1972.1

1 D0778; D0780

104.5 According to his medical records, Joe Friel suffered a gunshot wound to the chest.1The entry wound was on the right side of the sternum, level with his second rib, and the exit wound, which measured 1 inch x 2½ inches, was on the left side of his sternum below the clavicle.2His surgeon, Mr HM Bennett, recorded that a bullet had passed transversely across the front of Joe Friel’s chest from his right to left.3In a letter to the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Mr Bennett referred to the wound as being caused by an ‘almost near miss’ bullet ”;4elsewhere he wrote that Joe Friel was an extremely lucky young man ”.5In a report to this Inquiry, Dr Richard Shepherd and Mr Kevin O’Callaghan (experts engaged by this Inquiry) commented that on the basis of this information, the track of the wound was more likely to be as Mr Bennett described, ie from right to left, than the reverse.6

1 D768-780

2 D769

3 D778; D780

4 D0780

5 D0778

6 E10.8

Where and when Joe Friel was shot

Accounts given by Joe Friel

104.6 Joe Friel gave a number of accounts in 1972:

a) An interview with Detective Sergeant Cudmore on 1st February 1972.1

b) A filmed interview in which he is shown in his hospital bed.2 No date is given for this interview, but it must have taken place before he was discharged from Altnagelvin Hospital on 10th February 1972.

c) A statement signed by him bearing the date 7th February 1972.3This was probably taken for the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), since it was witnessed by Marie McDowell, who also took other NICRA statements.4

d) An undated statement,5which is probably one of a number that were prepared in February 1972 by the solicitors John Doherty and Christopher Napier, who represented the families of the deceased and the wounded at the Widgery Inquiry. We have seen correspondence from late February and early March 1972 that records that a number of statements taken from civilian witnesses were forwarded by Christopher Napier to John Heritage, the senior legal assistant at the Widgery Inquiry. Although Joe Friel’s statement was not among them, it is very similar in appearance to documents that we know were sent.6 In our view Joe Friel’s statement was probably withheld because it revealed that he had been on the civil rights march.7 This detail is notably absent from the formal statement that he gave for the Widgery Inquiry on 24th February 1972.8

e) A written statement for and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.9

f) An interview with the Sunday Times journalist Philip Jacobson dated 15th or 16th March 1972.10

1 AF34.10-11

2 Vid 4 10.54; X1.4.5-6

3 AF34.13-14

4 AD172.4; AD172.8

5 AF34.41-42

6 AW15.4; AN1.16-17

7 AF34.41

8 AF34.49-50

9 AF34.15-16; WT6.33-41; WT6.47-48

10 AF34.63-66

104.7 In about January 1998 Joe Friel gave an interview to Paul Mahon.1He was also interviewed by Don Mullan,2and by Jimmy McGovern and Stephen Gargan.3He gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.4

1 X4.9.1-50

2 AF34.69-77

3 AF34.78-118

4 AF34.1-68; Day 155/33-149

104.8 In his interview with Detective Sergeant Cudmore,1which was conducted at Altnagelvin Hospital, Joe Friel described watching the march from his home address, 9 Donagh Place, a flat on the seventh floor of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.2He said he decided to go to Free Derry Corner to listen to the speeches and was on his way there when he heard a lot of single shots being fired:3

“I then ran like mad towards my block of flats and when I reached the block nearest the Rossville Street end I stopped to get my breath. Shooting was fierce at this time although again I couldn’t see who was doing the shooting. There were about 5 young chaps at the entry door of my block of flats and I walked quickly up towards them keeping in near to the flats. I got right up to these fellows, who were young fellows, none of whom I knew. I didn’t say anything to these chaps and they didn’t speak to me. I stood with my back towards the upper entry of our flats which is off the old Bogside Road. I then heard somebody shout, ‘Look out’ or something like that and saw 3 or 4 soldiers appear at the entry between Rossville Street and the square where I was. They immediately opened fire and then I heard the shots and felt a thud on my chest. At first I thought I was hit by a rubber bullet but when I looked down I saw blood pouring out of my chest and mouth. I ran around the corner where I was assisted by some people. ”

1 AF34.10-11

2 GEN3.12

3 AF34.10

104.9 Joe Friel then continued by describing how he was taken to a house, then put in a car and eventually taken to Altnagelvin Hospital in an Army vehicle. We return to this part of his account below. He told Detective Sergeant Cudmore that he normally wore glasses but had broken them the week before, though he could see fairly well without them.

104.10 In his filmed interview,1Joe Friel described running into a square the minute the shooting started ”:2

“… a group of other boys ran into it too. We thought that was the safe spot, where there was a confined square. There was no way to get into it except two wee alleys … down at the foot of it.

So we thought we were safe from the shooting and we were just standing … and bullets were flying everywhere. We saw people panicking and running, hundreds of them. Next thing we saw is about four soldiers coming down that alley. Then they stepped out into the square and one of them opened fire from his hip. He couldn’t have had time to take aim because the minute they appeared I heard a shot, looked, saw him, heard about three shots bang, bang, bang. I thought I was hit with a rubber bullet and I looked down and I saw blood gushing out of here, and … I panicked I’m shouting I’m shot, I’m shot and I ran down the alley way and was carried out from there over into a house. ”

1 Vid 4 10.54; X1.4.5-6

2 X1.4.5

104.11 In his NICRA statement of 7th February 1972,1 Joe Friel again recorded that he had been making his way to the meeting at Free Derry Corner when the shooting began.2 He stated that he tried to run from Glenfada Park into Abbey Park in order to get away from the area.3He continued:4

“Just before coming to the archway I stopped between 5 or 6 young fellows when suddenly there was a shout which sounded like ‘look-out ’. I instinctively looked across Glenfada Park and saw 3 or 4 soldiers appear in an alleyway diagonally across from where I was standing. I saw that one of the soldiers had his rifle above his hip and had it pointed towards the group. He immediately opened fire. I remember hearing 3 bangs and felt a thud in the centre of my chest. Although I had seen him fire with the rifle I imagined it to be a rubber bullet because of the dull thud on my chest. Immediately I looked down and saw blood come from just beneath my left shoulder, at the same time blood came spurting out of my mouth. Being still on my feet I ran through the arch into the alleyway leading to Abbey Park shouting, ‘I’m shot, I’m shot ’.

1 AF34.13-14

2 AF34.13

3 AF34.13

4 AF34.13

104.12 In his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry dated 24th February 1972,1Joe Friel again stated that he went from his flat to listen to the speeches at Free Derry Corner. He heard the shooting commence just after Bernadette Devlin began to speak, and recalled steady firing from along Rossville Street. He stated that he then ran through the inner courtyard of Glenfada Park and got to the corner nearest the Rossville buildings , from where he could see people taking cover on the other side of Rossville Street and hear consistent firing. He continued:2

“I decided I could not safely [cross] over the road. I went along the pathway between the two parts of Glenfada Park meaning to leave the area entirely.

When I was nearly at the end of this pathway (where it passes between the two blocks) I heard someone behind me shout. It was not a shout of pain but I cannot otherwise describe it. I looked round and just saw soldiers appearing at an alley across the other side of Glenfada Park. I heard three bangs and felt something strike me below the left shoulder. It was like a light blow with a fist. I looked down and saw blood coming from a wound in my left upper chest. At the same time I coughed up blood. I ran a few steps and felt myself fall forward.

I am certain I saw the soldier who fired the shot which hit me. He was standing slightly to the front of the others and with his rifle at just above waist height fired three shots without aiming. His face was blacked up and I could not recognise him again. He was with at least two other soldiers.

I was carrying no weapon on this day. ”

1 AF34.15

2 AF34.15

104.13 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, Joe Friel reiterated that he was unarmed when he was shot, adding that he had nothing in his hands,1not even a stone ”.2 His response to allegations from Lance Corporal 104, who claimed that Joe Friel had admitted to having been in possession of a weapon when he was shot, is discussed below.

1 WT6.34

2 WT6.37

104.14 At this stage it should be noted that in the course of his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry Joe Friel was asked where he had come from and said from Just above that second barricade ”.1Asked whether this was the barricade at the end of Fahan Street or the barricade at the Rossville Flats, he answered, The barricade further up, not the one on Rossville Flats, the other one ”.2

1 WT6.39

2 WT6.39

104.15 According to the Sunday Times interview notes,1which are dated 15th or 16th March 1972, Joe Friel said that as he was walking over from the door of the Rossville Flats towards the meeting at Free Derry Corner:2

“… I heard a quite large burst of firing and the crowd began to go down on their faces or make for cover away from the open. I was still some way from the meeting area and I just dashed back to my right for cover in the nearest part of glenfadda [sic]. I went up the small alleyway that isn’t marked in your map but it runs along roughly parallel to rossville street. When I got to the end near the entrance to the flats, I realised there was no chance of crossing the street behind the barricade, the shooting was really fierce then. So I turned into glenfadda and made for the alleyway into abbey park, I was just thinking of getting out of the area completely at the time, since it didnt seem I could get home directly.

As I was about halfway down the pavement heading for the alleyway, I heard someone behind me shout something like ‘look out, the limeys are there ’ … This lad

saved my life because when he yelled out, I turned to my right and looking across the car-park bit I saw a group of soldiers standing by the far entrance to glenfadda. One of them was standing a few yards ahead of the others; he had his rifle tucked in just under his shoulder, sort of held in tight with his right arm, and it was aimed in my direction. I recall hearing three shots, bang, bang, bang and I felt a thump in my chest … I looked down and saw the gash in my jacket and the blood starting to come through, this was all in a few split seconds, you know, and I never stopped moving forward; I ran into the alley as the blood started coming from my mouth and two or three men grabbed me when I came through. ”

1 AF34.63-66

2 AF34.63

104.16 Philip Jacobson made a note that the person who shouted was a youth called Gregory Wild ”.1 We consider Gregory Wild’s evidence below. Another note added by Philip Jacobson’s colleague Peter Pringle indicated that Joe Friel recalled that when he was shot there were about six people in front of him and others behind, and that he did not remember anyone else lying on the ground or being hit.2

1 AF34.63

2 AF34.65

104.17 The Sunday Times map1shows the route described in the interview notes.

1 AF34.66

104.18 As is discussed above, we believe that Joe Friel’s undated statement1 was prepared by John Doherty and Christopher Napier in February 1972. In it Joe Friel stated that he had been on the civil rights march, but had denied this when interviewed by the RUC for fear of being sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.2 He recorded that he was well past the Rossville Flats when he heard shots and rubber bullets.3 He continued:4

“I glanced round as I was running, looking back towards the High flats. I saw a Saracen armoured car on the William Street side of the high flats – there was only the one I saw. I heard shots but I did not see any one shooting. People were running for cover; some were standing in close against the flats taking shelter behind the outbuildings. I raced across the street towards Glenfada Park and ran in through the empty space there. I was hopeful that I could then back back [sic] along the Glenfada houses, into the alleway [sic] and then be able to re-cross the Rossville Street and get into the High Flats where I live.

There was so much shooting that it was not possible for me to get back across Rossville Street so I continued on up towards Abbey Street, with the intention of getting out through the Little Diamond to get out of the area altogether. Just before I reached the alleyway leading out of the Glenfada houses I heard a shourt [sic] ‘look out ’ and I turned my head round. I saw a soldier holding a rifle – it was not up against his shoulder, but underneath his shoulder – and I heard three separate shots and I felt

a small crush – ‘thud’ on my chest. I felt blood coming up my throat and saw blood coming from under my left shoulder. I ran on some more. I felt myself falling forward and then I felt myself being held and I was taken into a house. ”

1 AF34.41-42

2 AF34.41

3 AF34.41

4 AF34.41-42

104.19 In the late 1990s Joe Friel gave accounts to the journalist Don Mullan;1 and to Stephen Gargan and Jimmy McGovern who were conducting interviews in preparation for their television dramatisation of the events of Bloody Sunday.2 Joe Friel’s evidence in these interviews was generally consistent with his solicitors’ statement in 1972.3

1 AF34.69-77

2 AF34.78-118

3 AF34.41-42

104.20 In addition to these accounts Joe Friel was also interviewed by the researcher Paul Mahon in 1998.1In this interview Joe Friel said that he had been on the march with his brother Mickey and, he thought but was not sure, Paddy O’Connor, but as the march went on they got separated.2He said that he recalled that he was close to the front of the march and could be seen on film,3and that when the Army brought out the water cannon he started to head for the Rossville Flats via Chamberlain Street, in order to go home for a cup of tea.4He said he was never a man for speeches so I had no intention of even going to the platform ”.5He had reached the forecourt of the Rossville Flats when he started hearing shots.6He told Paul Mahon that he ran (seemingly) into the gap between Blocks 1 and 2, tried to get into the entrance to Block 1 but could not because of the size of the crowd, and then ran across Rossville Street into Glenfada Park North.7He said that as he crossed Rossville Street he saw two boys fall, and he kept running when he got into Glenfada Park North:8

“I was about half way through when this boy shouted, Gregory Wild. And he turned round and said, ‘There’s the Brits.’ I turned instinctively like that. And as I looked, I could see three soldiers coming through the far end more or less diagonally across from where I was … The boy in front, he had a gun at his hip … you could see the smoke or whatever it was coming out of the gun. ”

1 X4.9.1-50

2 X4.9.3

3 X4.9.3

4 X4.9.4-5

5 X4.9.5

6 X4.9.7

7 X4.9.9-11

8 X4.9.17

104.21 A little later in this account Joe Friel said that he had got about two-thirds of the way across Glenfada Park North before he heard Gregory Wild’s shout.1He described one of the soldiers as crouching down with his rifle pointing and said that he was hit by the second or third shot fired by this soldier.2He agreed that the shots were pretty rapid fire ”.3

1 X4.9.18-20

2 X4.9.20-21

3 X4.9.23

104.22 In his written statement to this Inquiry, dated 21st July 1999,1Joe Friel described how he had watched the march from the flat and then left to listen to the speeches at Free Derry Corner.2He told us that he heard Army fire when Bernadette Devlin was speaking and ran back towards the Rossville Flats;3and that he paused at the telephone box at the southern end of Block 1 before moving around the corner to the south-western entrance to that block.4That doorway was full of people and he could not get in so he crossed Rossville Street to Glenfada Park North.5He told us that he remembered that as he did so people fell to his right, the north.6He then described running along the south side of Glenfada Park North, hearing a shout when he was about eight to ten feet from the south-western alleyway, stopping and turning to see soldiers about five or six feet into Glenfada Park North, coming from the north-east corner.7He told us that as he was without his glasses he could not make out the soldiers’ faces, and that he could not remember if they were blacked up.8He stated that there were three or four soldiers, and that the one in front was firing: He had his gun in front of him at just above waist height and was moving it from side to side – not swinging it, just moving it a few inches from left to right. The other soldiers were not firing their weapons. 9Joe Friel described hearing three shots, feeling a slight blow to his body and, realising he had been shot, shouting I’m shot, I’m shot! ”.10

1 AF34.1-8

2 AF34.1-2

3 AF34.2

4 AF34.2

5 AF34.2

6 AF34.2

7 AF34.2-3

8 AF34.3

9 AF34.3

10 AF34.3

104.23 In his initial written evidence to this Inquiry, Joe Friel referred to the undated statement that he gave in February 1972,1and described its contents as an utter fabrication that he believed to be part of the cover-up of what happened on Bloody Sunday .2However, he accepted that the signature on the document was his, and that the events described on its second page3were reasonably accurate ”.4

1 AF34.41-42

2 AF34.7

3 AF34.42

4 AF34.7

104.24 Before he came to give oral evidence, Joe Friel supplied a further statement to this Inquiry, which had been prepared by his solicitors and was dated 7th June 2000.1In this he stated that he wished to correct his initial written evidence of his movements on the day. He had not, as previously claimed, been in his family flat until he left to listen to the speeches. Instead:2

“I had in fact been on the march that day and not at home as I described. My reason for misstating the position was that I had given the same account in my statement to the Widgery Tribunal and felt that I should keep the two accounts consistent.

I had given the incorrect account to the Widgery Tribunal because at the date of the march I was a tax official in the Inland Revenue in Derry and in the climate of that time I was concerned that, if my superiors discovered that I had taken part in what was a proscribed march, it might result in my dismissal from secure employment. ”

1 AF34.67-68

2 AF34.67

104.25 Joe Friel gave oral evidence to this Inquiry on 10th October 2001. At the outset he told us that his further statement, admitting to being on the march,1was true to the best of his information and belief.2He also told us that he was “no longer alleging that the contents of the undated statement 3are a complete fabrication or a cover-up. I have always accepted that the signature on the document was mine. 4

1 AF34.67

2 Day 155/34

3 AF34.41

4 Day 155/35

104.26 Joe Friel also made some corrections to his written statement. He said that the impression given that he had immediately run through Glenfada Park North was wrong and that he had stayed there for seconds, maybe minutes ”. He also said that the soldier he saw was not moving the gun from side to side, but only in one direction, left to right.1

1 Day 155/36-37

104.27 During his oral evidence, Joe Friel rejected some of his earlier accounts of his movements before he reached Glenfada Park North. He described the route depicted on the Sunday Times map as totally nonsensical and totally wrong ”.1He maintained that after the shooting broke out he went first to the telephone box at the south gable end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, then tried to get into the flats and then crossed the road into Glenfada Park North, but he could not explain why that sequence did not appear in his statement for the Widgery Inquiry.2He was also asked about his reference, in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, to having come from the second barricade ”.3He stated that the rubble barricade in Rossville Street was divided into two parts, and by the second barricade he was intending to indicate the part of the barricade that was closer to Glenfada Park North, as opposed to the side that adjoined the Rossville Flats.4This explanation is in contrast to the unchallenged interpretation placed on his words in 1972 by the then questioning counsel, who took him to mean that the barricade in question was a smaller one in Fahan Street.5 Joe Friel stated in his oral evidence to this Inquiry that once he had got to Glenfada Park North he took cover behind one of the two cars, as shown in the south-east corner of the car park in the following photograph.6

1 Day 155/42; Day 155/51-52

2 Day 155/45-46

3 WT6.39

4 Day 155/47-48

5 WT6.39

6 As discussed in Chapter 176, the provenance of this photograph is uncertain (Day 155/53-56).

104.28 At this stage, Joe Friel told us, he could hear shooting, but there were no soldiers in Glenfada Park North.1He also said that his statement in his filmed interview that there were hundreds of people in the square was an exaggeration.2 With others who had been hiding behind the cars he decided to run towards the entrance to Abbey Park.3 His evidence of hearing a shout as he ran, turning and seeing soldiers in the north-east of the courtyard, seeing the lead soldier shoot and realising he had been hit was consistent with that given in his written statement.4 He added that his recollection of seeing the soldiers arrive in Glenfada Park North with one carrying a weapon at his hip was totally crystal clear ”.5 He also said that the boy who shouted the warning about the soldiers was Gregory Wild, who came to visit him in hospital a few days after Bloody Sunday.6

1 Day 155/56

2 Day 155/103-105

3 Day 155/56-57

4 Day 155/56-59; AF34.2-3

5 Day 155/115-116

6 Day 155/106; Day 155/111

104.29 Questioned by counsel for the family of Jim Wray, Joe Friel said he did not see Michael Kelly being carried across Glenfada Park North, nor did he see Jim Wray.1

1 Day 155/82-84

104.30 Joe Friel was asked who else he had told that he had been on the march.1He replied that he had told his wife, his father and possibly his sisters and his brothers. When asked, Is that it? , he replied, That is it ”.2He did not disclose that he had told Paul Mahon, though this may have been due simply to forgetfulness.

1 Day 155/136-137

2 Day 155/137

104.31 During the course of his oral evidence, Joe Friel was not asked any questions about his interview with Paul Mahon. The reason for this was that it was not until many months after Joe Friel had given evidence that the Inquiry obtained and transcribed the tapes of the interviews conducted by Paul Mahon. However, at the Inquiry’s invitation, Joe Friel’s solicitors subsequently made written submissions in respect of what the soldiers’ representatives described as inconsistencies between Joe Friel’s account to Paul Mahon and his other accounts.

104.32 We have examined the various accounts given by Joe Friel in some detail, taking these submissions into consideration. We have concluded that we should exercise some caution with regard to his evidence, especially that relating to his movements before he was shot. Our reasons for reaching this conclusion are as follows.

104.33 As he has himself admitted, Joe Friel lied to the police, to the Widgery Inquiry and initially to this Inquiry about his presence on the march. It is understandable that in 1972 he did not wish the authorities to know about this as he would have risked imprisonment and the loss of his job. However, that reason did not exist when he made his first written statement to this Inquiry, in which he gave a detailed but wholly false account of what he could see of the march from his home in the Rossville Flats. His explanation for continuing to lie was that he wished his evidence to be consistent with what he had said in 1972, but in other words this means that he was at one stage at least prepared to seek to deceive this Inquiry in order to bolster his credibility, rather than seek to help us to discover the truth. Joe Friel told us that his decision finally to tell the truth was his own.1

1 Day 155/88-89; Day 155/128

104.34 There are other matters. Joe Friel told us that he went on his own on the march, whereas he told Paul Mahon that he had gone with his brother and talked with others along the way.1He told us that he had gone down to hear the speeches, but told Paul Mahon that he had not done so, but instead had gone towards his flat for a cup of tea.2He told us that he could not remember the route that he took to get to the area of the Rossville Flats, but explained to Paul Mahon that he had gone down Chamberlain Street and across the forecourt of the Rossville Flats.3He told us that he had paused behind a car in the corner of Glenfada Park North before running for the south-western exit, but told Paul Mahon that he had not paused but run straight across Glenfada Park North.4He gave the Widgery Inquiry one account of how he got into Glenfada Park North and us another.5In this regard, we are satisfied that Philip Jacobson accurately recorded the route that Joe Friel told him that he had followed to get into Glenfada Park North, a route that Joe Friel himself categorised as nonsensical ”,6but which seems to us to be the same or much the same route as he described to the Widgery Inquiry.

1 Day 155/99; Day 155/118; X4.9.3

2 Day 155/38; X4.9.5

3 Day 155/100; X4.9.5

4 Day 155/53-54; X4.9.17

5 AF34.15; WT6.39; AF34.2; Day 155/38-53

6 Day 155/42

104.35 On its own, each of the matters considered in the previous paragraph is not perhaps of the greatest significance, but cumulatively to our minds, together with his initial attempt to deceive this Inquiry, they undermine our confidence in accepting (unless supported by other evidence) the accuracy of the accounts given by Joe Friel as to his movements before he ran from the south-east corner of Glenfada Park North towards the south-west exit, though he has consistently stated, and we accept, that he was shot just as he reached that exit. Our lack of confidence was reinforced by the way he gave oral evidence. He was understandably hostile to the Army, but was in our judgment by turns overly combative and defensive and sometimes too ready to answer without giving the matter sufficient thought. It must further be borne in mind that, as he told us, he still bears physical and mental scars from what happened on Bloody Sunday.1

1 AF34.8

104.36 It is the case that Joe Friel has from the time of his NICRA statement maintained that he saw the soldier who shot him as the leading one of three or four who had come through the north-eastern alleyway of Glenfada Park North, who he said fired three shots from the hip, or from between the hip and the shoulder.1However, in his very first interview it appears that he told Detective Sergeant Cudmore that he saw three or four soldiers appear at the entry between Rossville Street and the square where he was and that They immediately opened fire ”,2without identifying the leading soldier as the one who had fired and hit him. We bear in mind, of course, that this interview took place only two days after Joe Friel had been admitted to hospital and quite soon after he had been under general anaesthetic, but he cannot have been particularly confused as he was able to give the police a detailed but wholly false account of watching the march from his home. Thus, although we are satisfied that Joe Friel did see soldiers coming into Glenfada Park North, and that one fired from the hip, or from between the hip and the shoulder, we are less certain, from his evidence alone, that he identified the leading soldier as the one who shot him.

1 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers drew our attention to the fact that Joe Friel, in his interview with Paul Mahon, described the soldier as firing from a crouched position. However, the video of the interview shows that Joe Friel was demonstrating that the soldier had the rifle at roughly waist level; and elsewhere during the interview he agreed that the soldier had the gun at his hip.

2 AF34.10

Evidence of other witnesses

104.37 There is, however, other evidence that does indicate that it was the leading soldier who fired and hit Joe Friel.

104.38 The evidence of Gregory Wild has been considered earlier in this report1 in relation to the scene as the soldiers arrived in Glenfada Park. Gregory Wild, who was 14 at the time of Bloody Sunday, is shown in the following photograph (also reproduced above) carrying what appears to be a piece of wood.2

1 Paragraphs 101.21–22 2 AW15.9

104.39 Gregory Wild was interviewed in 1972 by Peter Pringle of the Sunday Times Insight Team.1In his notes of the interview, which are dated 6th April, Peter Pringle described Gregory Wild as being very bright, good witness, in spite of his age. also very articulate. 2

1 AW15.1-2

2 AW15.2

104.40 The notes of the interview, which appear to be a transcript of Gregory Wild’s actual words, record that Gregory Wild arrived in Glenfada Park North at about the same time as Michael Kelly was shot at the rubble barricade.1 According to the notes:2

“just as I had crossed over into glenfada to make my way home there were some shots. I did not know any of those who were shot at the barricade and I did not witness them but I saw a group of people round one of the bodies which I now know was kelly. there were lots of people milling around in the car park of glenfada park. I was making my way towards the alley way leading into abbey park when I suddenly saw a soldier at the northeastern corner – diagonally opposite from me. there [were] people in front and behind me at the time. I shouted: ‘Look out there’s a limey. ’ I think there was another one behind him. Just as I shouted that two shots rang out and I was certain that they came from the soldier I was looking at. he had fired from the hip. it was definitely not an aimed shot. we all started to run through to the alley way. On the other side friel became hysterical and shouted I’m shot, I’m shot. I was at the top of the steps when some people came thru the alley way carrying a body. they shouted

to me to open the door of the nearest house – it was no. 7 – . I was ready to put the boot in the door when it opened and I helped to carry the body in. I now know that it was kelly’s body. ”

1 AW15.1

2 AW15.1

104.41 Gregory Wild then told Peter Pringle that he helped to carry Michael Kelly’s body into the house, and later saw the body of Jim Wray brought into the same house after hearing some firing which he took to be coming from Glenfada Park. He also said that at some stage he saw another body, which he now knew to be Gerard McKinney, on the steps immediately opposite the alleyway.

104.42 A marked map accompanied the interview notes.1This indicated the positions of the soldier, of where Joe Friel was shot, and where Gregory Wild was at the time.

1 AW15.3

104.43 Gregory Wild made a signed statement in 1972.1In his written evidence to this Inquiry,2he said that he believed that this statement was prepared from his conversation with Peter Pringle. However, we consider that Gregory Wild was mistaken in this belief, as we are satisfied that it was in fact made some time in February 1972 and was one of a number of statements, discussed above, that were handed to John Heritage of the Widgery Inquiry by Christopher Napier, the solicitor who represented the families of the deceased, on 29th February 1972.

1 AW15.4

2 AW15.5

104.44 In this statement Gregory Wild described seeing a soldier in Glenfada Park close to the entrance leading onto Rossville Street. Gregory Wild stated that the soldier was holding a rifle at just about the height of his hip and appeared to have his gun resting on a small wall . Gregory Wild called out a warning and saw Joe Friel turn towards the soldier. Gregory Wild was also looking in that direction, and saw a flash and heard a shot. He continued: Joe Friel ran a short distance towards an opening which leads [to] Abbey Place and he was shouting ‘I’m shot; I’m shot.’ I saw blood coming from his shoulder. Two men ran towards him and caught him underneath his arms and took him away. 1

1 AW15.4

104.45 Gregory Wild also stated that he visited Joe Friel in Altnagelvin Hospital.1

1 AW15.4

104.46 The signed statement Gregory Wild gave in February 1972 differs from his Sunday Times account in three main respects. First, in the February statement Gregory Wild referred to seeing only one soldier, rather than two, though this may be because he was asked only about the soldier he saw firing. Second, he recorded that this soldier appeared to rest his rifle on a small wall ”. Third, he referred to only one shot, whereas he mentioned two to the Sunday Times.

104.47 Gregory Wild gave a written statement to this Inquiry.1 In relation to these points of difference, Gregory Wild stated that he saw two soldiers, one in the north-west corner of Glenfada Park and one in the north-east.2 He told us that he thought that the soldier in the north-east fired two or three shots with the barrel of his gun resting on the wall of a wheelchair ramp.3 At the time when the Inquiry was hearing oral evidence Gregory Wild lived abroad, and he stated in his written evidence that he had no intention of appearing before us in person as he would find it too painful and distressing.4 We were accordingly unable to call him.

1 AW15.5-10

2 AW15.6

3 AW15.6-7; AW15.9-10; AW15.11; AW15.17

4 AW15.10

104.48 Gregory Wild told us that the surgical mask that can be seen in the photograph of him close to the group carrying Michael Kelly shown above1was supplied by volunteers of the Order of Malta Ambulance Corps, and that once soaked in vinegar it provided some protection against the effects of CS gas.2

1 Paragraph 104.38 2AW15.9

104.49 We consider that Gregory Wild’s 1972 accounts are likely to be more reliable than his recollections after so many years. Thus it seems to us that his recollection of seeing a soldier in the north-western corner of Glenfada Park North is in error, and the soldier or soldiers he saw appeared at the north-eastern corner. It remains uncertain whether he heard one or two shots; though he may well have seen a second soldier behind the one he recalled firing. His February 1972 account of the soldier appearing to have his rifle resting on a low wall is difficult to follow, since, so far as we can ascertain, there was no low wall near the north-east entrance to Glenfada Park North.

104.50 Although we have not had the advantage of hearing the oral evidence of Gregory Wild, it is clear that he impressed Peter Pringle and we take the view that he is a witness on whom we can place some reliance. His 1972 evidence, together with that of Joe Friel, leads us to conclude that Joe Friel was shot in Glenfada Park North by a soldier (probably one of the first to come into Glenfada Park North) who was holding his rifle at hip level, or between his hip and his shoulder.

104.51 We should note at this point that we have considered the evidence given by Derek McFeely,1Joseph Gallagher,2Paul Coyle3and John Devine.4The first of these signed Donal Dunn’s NICRA statement and gave written and oral evidence to us, but we formed the view that although he was doing his best to help us, with regard to his present recollection of what he saw when at the entrance into Abbey Park, he no longer had a reliable memory. We formed the same view of the reliability of the recollections of the others.

1 AM217.2-4; Day 61/80-84; Day 61/106-114

2 AG18.2-3; Day 165/10-24; Day 165/36-37; AG18.7

3 AC105.4; Day 152/77-82

4 AD41.2

104.52 The other evidence as to what happened to Joe Friel immediately after he was shot is confused and in parts conflicting.

Where Joe Friel went after he was shot

104.53 As noted above, Joe Friel told Detective Sergeant Cudmore that after he was shot he ran round the corner where he was assisted by some people and carried into someone’s house.1In his NICRA statement he recorded that he ran into the alleyway leading to Abbey Park and was then carried to a house in Lisfannon Park.2In his Sunday Times interview he said that he never stopped moving forward despite coughing up blood and seeing the wound in his chest. He said he ran into the alleyway and two or three men grabbed me when I came through ”. He identified one of the men who helped him as Leo Young.3

1 AF34.10

2 AF34.13

3 AF34.63-64

104.54 In his written evidence to this Inquiry, Joe Friel stated that he did not think that he fell after being shot, while in his oral evidence he told us that he did fall after he had almost made it to the Abbey Park alleyway.1He recorded in his written statement that he was helped by Leo Young, Eugene McGillan and Jackie Chambers.2In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Joe Friel said that these names had been given to him by Leo Young, either when they met at the Ardoyne Hotel or at the Widgery Inquiry. Joe Friel went on in his oral evidence to say that he had recently found out that Jackie Chambers had not carried him, but that Patsy Bradley and Manus Morrison had done so.3

1 AF34.3; Day 155/63

2 AF34.3

3 Day 155/60

104.55 Hugh Leo Young told the Widgery Inquiry that he did not assist Joe Friel in Glenfada Park, but first saw him when he was lying against a wall in an alleyway that was described as being at the south-westerly corner of the south-westerly block of Glenfada Park ”. Hugh Leo Young stated that a “large crowd had run through the alleyway, but it was left to him and two others to carry Joe Friel to a house in Lisfannon Park.1

1 AY1.9; AY1.15

104.56 Hugh Leo Young appears to have given an interview to the Sunday Times shortly after Bloody Sunday. The extant notes do not mention Joe Friel, but a map that is marked with Hugh Leo Young’s name (and which is dated 29th March) appears to us to indicate that he first saw Joe Friel at the south-west end of the Abbey Park alleyway, and that he carried him from there into the Murrays’ house in Lisfannon Park.1

1 AY1.27

104.57 Hugh Leo Young said to this Inquiry that he had no recollection of being interviewed by anyone from the Sunday Times, although he thought that he might have been. However, he did not think that the map accurately represented his movements or the position in which he saw Joe Friel.1

1 Day 388/46-49

104.58 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Hugh Leo Young explained that he first saw Joe Friel as the latter stumbled out of the alleyway leading from the south-west corner of Glenfada Park South and collapsed at a small wall nearby.1 He believed that Joe Friel was the last person to emerge from the alleyway, and was unaided at that time. Hugh Leo Young told us that he ran from his position on the southern side of Fahan Street West and reached Joe Friel at the same time as a couple of other people. Together, four of them picked Joe Friel up and carried him to a house in Lisfannon Park.2

1 AY1.11; AY1.14

2 AY1.2; AY1.14; Day 388/24-29

104.59 Hugh Leo Young remained confident that he saw Joe Friel coming through the south-western alleyway leading from Glenfada Park South into Abbey Park, despite being shown the Sunday Times marked map.1

1 Day 388/33-35; Day 388/47-49

104.60 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Jackie Chambers told us that he did not help to carry Joe Friel, but was present at the Murrays’ house in Lisfannon Park when others brought him there.1

1 AC56.1-2

104.61 Eugene McGillan’s evidence consisted of a brief NICRA statement in which he recorded: “They [the Army] hit a boy standing behind me. I pulled him away and we carried him into [...] house. ”1

1 AM233.1

104.62 Manus Morrison’s evidence to this Inquiry was that he did not see or assist Joe Friel until the latter was in the Abbey Park region. He stated that he was not aware of any military activity in Glenfada Park, and, on his account, he ran through the alleyway before any soldiers arrived in the area. Once in Abbey Park, he saw a man who he later learned was Joe Friel, on the pavement of the Old Bog Road (Fahan Street West) close to the south-eastern corner of Abbey Park.1 This man was on the ground and had an injury to his chest. Manus Morrison believed that he tended Joe Friel with the help of a man whom he knew, and to whom the Inquiry has given the cipher CIV 1. Manus Morrison did not recall carrying Joe Friel to a house; instead he believed that he flagged down a car to take Joe Friel to hospital.2

1 AM437.1

2 AM437.1-2; AM437.4; Day 154/86-92; Day 154/105-110

104.63 CIV 1 gave a Keville interview in 1972 in which he stated that he saw Joe Friel lying shot in a house, realised that he had to be taken to hospital immediately, asked if anyone had a car and was lent one by the person next door. He recalled that he, Manus Morrison and another then set off for the hospital with Joe Friel in the back.1 His evidence about borrowing a car is supported by Brian Kelly, who told us that he lived at Lisfannon Park, and that he lent the car to CIV 1.2 Patsy Bradley stated to this Inquiry that he saw a man, whom he later recognised as Joe Friel, fall in front of him and to his right as they ran across Glenfada Park. Patsy Bradley did not recall hearing any shouts of warning just before this incident, and he did not believe that Joe Friel looked over his shoulder in the seconds before he was shot. His evidence was that Joe Friel was slightly to the west of centre in the south of the courtyard when he was hit, and that he fell onto the tarmac of the car park and not the pavement at its southern edge.3

1 AD23.4

2 CIV 1 told the RUC in 1972 that he went to a house in Meenan Park (ED34.10) but in our view, in the light of Brian Kelly’s evidence, this is wrong (AK6.3-4).

3 AB68.3; AB68.13; Day 153/130-136; Day 153/151-152

104.64 Patsy Bradley’s recollection of the scene in Glenfada Park was limited, but he believed that there were about 15 or 20 people in front of him as he ran. He believed that he heard about five or six bangs around the time that Joe Friel fell, but assumed that they were rubber bullets. As he lifted Joe Friel with the help of another (see below), he heard one different, sharper noise than the bangs he had heard before. He did not see any other casualties in Glenfada Park, and he did not see any soldiers there either.1

1 AB68.3; Day 153/130-135

104.65 Patsy Bradley told us that he recalled that he and another man whom he did not know helped Joe Friel to his feet from the tarmac onto which he had fallen, and then carried him (Patsy Bradley going first carrying his legs and the other man holding him under his armpits) out of Glenfada Park, through the Abbey Park alleyway, and to a house in Lisfannon Park. Patsy Bradley said that he believed that he saw two bullets striking the tarmac as they crossed Fahan Street West.1

1 AB68.3; Day 153/132-136

104.66 Patsy Bradley told this Inquiry that Joe Friel was not carrying any form of weapon.1

1 AB68.5

104.67 We are satisfied from the evidence of Gregory Wild (discussed above) that Joe Friel was, as he has always maintained, shot while in Glenfada Park North, after which he ran or stumbled through the south-west alleyway into Abbey Park, shouting that he had been shot. We consider that Patsy Bradley’s recollection (decades after the event) of carrying Joe Friel from Glenfada Park North must accordingly be faulty, though he may have assisted Joe Friel at a later stage. It also seems to us that Hugh Leo Young must be mistaken in his current recollection that Joe Friel came out of the Glenfada Park South alleyway, though we have no reason to doubt that Hugh Leo Young was one of those who carried him.

104.68 We are also satisfied that Joe Friel was carried to Lisfannon Park and then put in a car to be taken to hospital. In this regard we prefer the 1972 accounts of Hugh Leo Young and CIV 1 to the belief of Manus Morrison that Joe Friel was put in a car flagged down in the Old Bog Road (Fahan Street West). Although we are not certain about this, we consider it more likely than not that Joe Friel remained on his feet for a while and may indeed have got some way towards Fahan Street West before he fell.

Where Joe Friel was then taken

104.69 Once inside the Murrays’ house in Lisfannon Park, Joe Friel was treated by Eibhlin Lafferty, an Order of Malta Ambulance Corps volunteer.1 As we have already noted, CIV 1 borrowed a car, which was a light-coloured Ford Cortina with the registration number HGB 992D, from Brian Kelly next door, in order to take Joe Friel to hospital.2 Joe Friel was placed on the back seat, and he was joined in the car by CIV 1, who was driving, Manus Morrison, in the front passenger seat, and Eugene O’Donnell, who crouched over Joe Friel in the rear of the vehicle.3

1 AF34.3; AM17.2; AM17.9; AM17.13

2 AD23.4; ED34.10-11; ED34.4; AO27.2; AF34.3

3 AD23.4; AO27.2-3; Day 155/177; ED34.10-11; AF34.3; AF34.10; AF34.44; AM437.2

104.70 CIV 1 drove the Cortina to Barrack Street,1 where he was stopped at Barrier 20, an Army checkpoint manned by soldiers from 7 Platoon, B Company, 1 R ANGLIAN. According to the battalion’s log sheet the car had arrived there by 1631 hours.2

1 AD23.4-5; ED34.10-11; AF34.3; WT6.37

2 W106.7; W103

104.71 Barrier 20 was erected in Barrack Street close to the corner of Pitt Street. It consisted of a barbed wire barrier and a strategically placed Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC).1

1 B1165; B1832

Barrier 20

104.72 The car driven by CIV 1 arrived at Barrier 20 at about the same time as two other vehicles.1 One of these was the car containing Gerald Donaghey (shot in Abbey Park as we describe below) with Hugh Leo Young and the driver Raymond Rogan, who had come from Abbey Park. We return later in this report2 to consider what happened to this car and its passengers at Barrier 20, in the context of considering the question of whether Gerald Donaghey was in possession of nail bombs when he was shot. The other vehicle, apparently containing a middle-aged couple whom the Inquiry has been unable to identify, reversed and drove back into the Bogside.3

1 B1586; B1665; B1832

2 Chapter 130

3 B1587; B1666; B1833

104.73 The Cortina with Joe Friel was probably on the left (looking from the barrier) of the car carrying the older couple. The vehicle carrying Gerald Donaghey seems to have been to the right (again looking from the barrier) and slightly behind the other two vehicles.1

1 B1586; B1665; B1832; B1876; B1898; B1909; AR24.3-4

104.74 Before these vehicles arrived a crowd of some 20 to 40 civilians, mostly women and children, had come to Barrier 20 from the direction of the Bogside and asked to be let through the barrier. The soldiers initially refused and an argument developed but after about five minutes the soldiers agreed to let the people through. At this stage the vehicles arrived and stopped behind the crowd, probably just as the barrier was about to be moved.1

1 B895; B1586; B1665; B1680; B1690; B1832; B1898; B1909; B1912

Evidence of what happened on the arrival of the car carrying Joe Friel

104.75 We consider first the evidence from soldiers.

104.76 Private 029, Private 042, Corporal 150 and Private 135 gave evidence that the driver (CIV 1) or the person in the front passenger seat (Manus Morrison) or both shouted to the soldiers manning the barrier to open it as they were late for work or that they wanted to get to work.1

1 B1586; B1666; B1898; B1832

104.77 Private 029 said that he approached the driver’s side of the car with Sergeant AA and that Private 135 went to the passenger’s side. Private 029 stated that as he got there the driver said that he had a sick man in the back and Sergeant AA (the Platoon Sergeant of 7 Platoon) told the driver to get out. I dragged the driver out of the car and put him against the wall of a house. ‘AA’ took the passenger behind the driver out and did likewise. The other person in the back was wounded and was left in the car. 1Sergeant AA gave a similar account in his Royal Military Police (RMP) statement but said nothing about the driver demanding that the barrier be opened as he was late for or wanted to get to work. He stated that Corporal 150 and Lance Corporal 104 assisted in the arrest of these two people.2

1 B1586-7

2 B895-6

104.78 According to Private 135, as he approached the passenger’s side of the vehicle, the front passenger aged about 20–25 yrs wearing a black leather jacket and dark trousers, threw the door open to block my way. I fired one baton round at this man as he turned to run away, the round hit him a glancing blow on his left shoulder and he ran off down Barrack St into the Bogside. 1Sergeant AA,2Private 0293and Private 0424gave similar accounts of this incident, though Sergeant AA thought that the baton round had hit the person in the head.

1 B1833

2 B896

3 B1587

4 B1666

104.79 There is some 1972 evidence from the soldiers that after CIV 1, Manus Morrison and Eugene O’Donnell had left the vehicle, it started rolling backwards down the hill. It seems that Sergeant AA and possibly another soldier stopped this happening after which Lance Corporal 104 got into the car and drove it through Barrier 20, which by this time had been opened.1

1 B1690; B1694; B1876

104.80 On the basis of the military evidence considered above, including his own RMP statement, Sergeant AA played a significant role in dealing with the crowd and cars at Barrack Street. However, in his evidence to the Widgery Inquiry he stated that he was aware of the arrival of two cars carrying casualties, but he claimed not to have taken any part in the incident at all .1 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Sergeant AA accepted that he knew that this was untrue when he said it, and that he was wrong to give such false evidence. He gave various reasons for concealing his involvement in the incident, namely that he did not think that the incident was relevant,2that he wanted to complete his evidence to the Widgery Inquiry as quickly as possible,3perhaps because I did not search the body at the time 4and that he might have misunderstood the question.5Sergeant AA denied that he did not mention this incident as he wished to conceal misconduct in the form of Private 135 firing a baton round into a car, soldiers abusing the passengers, and a woman who said she was a nurse being prevented from going to the casualties.6

1 B903

2 B908.9

3 B908.9

4 B908.9

5 Day 378/225

6 Day 378/207-215

104.81 We are unconvinced by the first two of these excuses and from the Widgery Inquiry transcript it is difficult to see how Sergeant AA could have misunderstood the question.1As to the two remaining possibilities, we accept Sergeant AA’s denial that he was seeking to conceal misconduct. For reasons given below, we do not believe that Private 135 fired a baton round into a car, nor are we sure of the accuracy of his account of preventing a nurse from going to the casualties. As to verbal abuse, in the climate of the times this does not seem to us to be of any real significance. In our view the most likely explanation is that Sergeant AA had failed to search or order the searching of the car, which in our view he should have done. Battalion HQ sent a message to B Company ordering a check of the car for weapons, though this was probably not received until after the car had left Barrier 20.2

1 B903

2 W106.7 serial 83

104.82 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Private 135 gave an account of firing his baton gun into the car, hitting the men in the front and knocking them out of the car, whereupon they got up and ran away. He told us that he had acted in response to seeing the vehicle lurch forward and touch the barrier; and that he fired in order to force the occupants out of the car. He also told us that after firing the baton round, he looked and saw a man (Gerald Donaghey) in the back of the car; and that a woman who said that she was a nurse came across to the car and was told by him in abusive terms to go away.1For reasons given below, we do not accept Private 135’s evidence of firing his baton gun into a car.

1 B1835.007-008; Day 379/143-145; Day 379/151-152

104.83 As to the police, there is some evidence from RUC officers who were stationed at the corner of Barrack Street and Bishop Street, which was about 40 yards from Barrier 20,1 to the effect that one or both of the cars rammed or tried to force their way through the barrier.2

1 JS2.1

2 Sergeant Keys (JK5.1); Constable Gawley (JG3.1; JG3.3); Constable McVeigh (JM42.1); Constable Carson (JC5.1; JC5.2); Constable Scott (JS2.1)

104.84 We are satisfied that this did not happen, as none of the soldiers manning the barrier suggested in their 1972 evidence that this occurred or indeed that any police officers were at the barrier. Private 135, in his evidence to us, agreed that he might have been mistaken in his recollection that one of the cars lurched forward and touched the barrier and nothing in his evidence or that of any of the other soldiers suggests that there was any deliberate attempt to ram the barrier. Sergeant AA agreed, in his oral evidence to this Inquiry, that this had not happened.1 As will be seen later in this report,2 Corporal 150 told us that when he drove the car containing Gerald Donaghey through Barrier 20 he remembered clipping it.3 It may be this incident that these officers saw and wrongly believed was an attempt to force through the barrier. We return below to the evidence of the police officers.

1 Day 379/164-166; Day 378/204

2 Paragraph 130.11

3 B1918.2

104.85 We now turn to the civilian evidence.

104.86 In his Keville interview, CIV 1 stated that they had hoped to get outside the area without the troops seeing them, but this was impossible and they went straight to the barrier:1

“Manus Morrison got out of the car as there was a car in front of us at the barricade and he approached the soldiers and told them that we had someone shot in the back of the car. The soldiers then ripped the barricade away and came towards the car and Morrison managed to run away and he was shot by a rubber bullet gun and I saw someone else in the car in front of me, he started to give cheek to the Army, telling them that there was someone shot and they had to get to the hospital right away and they fired a rubber bullet gun at his chest at point blank range in – in the window. I was then pulled out of the car I was put up against the wall… ”

1 AD23.3

104.87 CIV 1 is dead and gave no evidence to this Inquiry.

104.88 In his Keville interview Eugene O’Donnell recalled that when they approached the barrier and asked to be let through they immediately attacked the car and dragged us all out. One of them – the driver was hit over the head with a – a rifle. We were dragged out and up – put up against the wall and er – searched… 1His NICRA statement was to the same effect.2In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Eugene O’Donnell explained that what he meant by soldiers attacking the car was that the soldiers had pulled him and CIV 1 out of the car and one had also jumped in and put on the handbrake.3He told us that he did not recollect the driver (CIV 1) being hit over the head with a rifle nor any incident in which Manus Morrison was hit by a baton round.4He recalled that the front passenger followed by the driver and then he went out of the car in that order.5

1 AO27.9

2 AO27.8

3 Day 155/182-185

4 Day 155/183-184

5 Day 155/192-193

104.89 Manus Morrison did not give a statement in 1972.1In his written evidence to this Inquiry2he stated:

“As we drove up Bishop Street we were stopped at an army barricade at the top of Bishop Street. There were two soldiers there. One seemed to be a normal soldier. He was wearing a khaki camouflage uniform and was carrying a baton gun. I cannot remember what type of helmet he was wearing, I cannot remember if his helmet had a visor or not. The other soldier looked to me like a major as he was wearing a side arm belt with a revolver in it.

The soldiers told us to pull our vehicle in to the left hand side of the road and we did. The soldier with the baton gun told me to get out of the car. I opened the passenger car door and as I was getting out I was suddenly hit at close range with a rubber bullet to my left shoulder. At the time I was not standing straight, I was in a bent position getting out of the car and facing the soldier. He did not say anything to me he just shot me. The major went to CIV 1’s side of the car but I did not see what happened.

After I was shot in the left shoulder with the rubber bullet I spun round and ran. I was very scared. I just ran and ran. I never heard the soldiers shout to me and I cannot remember them firing any rubber bullets or any other live ammunition to stop me from running away. I do not know if they fired at me or not. I cannot remember where I was running to. I just wanted to get away. ”

1 Day 154/119 2AM437.2

104.90 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Manus Morrison told us he believed that one of the soldiers who approached the car was an officer, possibly a Major, carrying a sidearm.1He also said that the soldier who fired at him had his rubber bullet gun just sitting at the top of the door ”, but that when I opened the door he put the rubber bullet gun down and told me to get out ”. He agreed with the soldier’s description of his age and what he was wearing, but denied that he had said that he wanted to get to work or that he had opened the door in an attempt to block the soldier. He told me to get out of the car and I opened the car door and he just let blow [sic] with the rubber bullet gun. He said that he was hit on the front of the shoulder and denied that he had been hit as he was running away. He also disagreed with the evidence that Private 135 gave us about firing into the car and knocking two people out.2

1 Day 154/93

2 Day 154/95-102

104.91 In the statement that Joe Friel gave to Detective Sergeant Cudmore at Altnagelvin Hospital on 1st February 1972, he merely stated that the soldiers got the other three people out of the car and recalled a soldier getting into the driver’s seat to stop it running back.1In what appears to be a NICRA statement, Joe Friel described seeing the driver being dragged out of the car and also the other two passengers being taken out. I heard a bang which I took to be a rubber bullet being fired. 2There is nothing in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry about what happened at Barrier 20.3In his oral evidence to that Inquiry he denied that the driver had got out and talked to a soldier: He was dragged out. He also denied that the driver had said anything about being late for work but that he had shouted There is a man in here, he is dead ”.4

1 AF34.11

2 AF34.14

3 AF34.15

4 WT6.38

104.92 In his written evidence to this Inquiry, Joe Friel stated that CIV 1 had been dragged out of the car, but said that he thought that Eugene O’Donnell had opened the back door and got out himself. He stated that he did not know whether Manus Morrison had got out himself or had been dragged out. He stated that he then heard a bang that could have been a rubber bullet or CS gas, and that a soldier jumped into the car and tried to stop it moving. His oral evidence was to the same effect.1

1 AF34.3; Day 155/66-71

104.93 We consider in more detail later in this report1the evidence of the occupants of the car carrying Gerald Donaghey, who were Raymond Rogan and Hugh Leo Young.

1 Chapter 130

104.94 Raymond Rogan told the Widgery Inquiry that he recalled seeing the driver getting out of the car in front of him at Barrier 20.1In an interview with Stephen Gargan, Raymond Rogan said that he thought that people were taken from that car; he could not say for definite but presumed that what had happened to him had happened to the occupants of the other car.2

1 WT6.4

2 AR24.83

104.95 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Hugh Leo Young said that he was made to line up against a wall with three other men who, he assumed, had been taken from the other car. He told us that subsequently those three men were put in a “Saracen ” while he and Raymond Rogan were put in a jeep and taken to Craigavon Bridge.1In his statement for the Widgery Inquiry, Hugh Leo Young said that the men who had got out of the first car told him that Joe Friel was in it.2In an interview with Jimmy McGovern, Hugh Leo Young said that five boys from the car containing Joe Friel had already been captured by the Army by the time he arrived at the barrier; they were already against a wall. He said that he and Raymond Rogan were put in a jeep and that the other boys must have been taken somewhere else because he did not see them again.3

1 AY1.4-5

2 AY1.9

3 AY1.39-40

104.96 Two schoolgirls gave NICRA statements about what they said they saw at the barrier at Barrack Street. Perpetua O’Neill described the driver of a car jumping out and shouting to the soldiers to open the barricade as there was an injured man in the car. One of the soldiers approached driver of the car, held his gun in one hand and began searching the driver with the other, feeling his pockets. The man said ‘I’ve nothing on me! ’ Just after he said this there was a flash from the gun in the soldiers hand, the driver of the car put his hands to his shoulder and ran away towards St. Columb’s Wells. 1Perpetua O’Neill mentioned nothing about this incident in her written evidence to this Inquiry.2

1 AO63.1

2 AO63.2

104.97 Brenda Doherty gave a rather different account. She described a car coming up Barrack Street and a young man getting out of it, saying that he had a dying man in the car and needed to go to a hospital. She said that a soldier who was standing by a “Saracen ” fired a rubber bullet which struck the young man on the right shoulder. Two soldiers then came down through the barrier and opened the car door.1The Inquiry could not find this witness and we accordingly have no evidence from her apart from this NICRA statement, which does not seem consistent with what other witnesses have said.

1 AO63.6

Consideration of the Barrier 20 evidence

104.98 The military and civilian evidence is consistent to the extent that a baton round was fired at one of the people who had arrived in the car carrying Joe Friel; and we have no doubt that this was Manus Morrison, Perpetua O’Neill being mistaken in thinking it was the driver. We reject the account given long after the event by Private 135 of firing into a car. CIV 1, Eugene O’Donnell and Manus Morrison who were in the car with Joe Friel; and Raymond Rogan and Hugh Leo Young who were in the car with Gerald Donaghey, never suggested that this had happened. CIV 1 did give a 1972 account of seeing a soldier fire into the car in front, but he too must be wrong about this. The car carrying Gerald Donaghey was behind, and there is no other evidence from either soldiers or civilians to suggest that a baton round was fired into the car carrying the middle-aged couple, or (as CIV 1 stated) that anyone in this latter car said that there was someone shot and they had to get to hospital.

104.99 As to what Private 135 said to us about the woman who said that she was a nurse, this may have been another false account. None of the other soldiers said anything at the time about a nurse coming forward to one of the cars. However, Sergeant AA in his RMP statement1did record that a woman among the crowd in front of the barrier said that she was a nurse and that there was a sick man in the car with the red stripe. (This would have been the car carrying Gerald Donaghey.) Sergeant AA stated that he was suspicious and so went through the barrier and approached the first car. We had the impression that Private 135 was not kindly disposed towards this Inquiry; and that he may well have said what he did to us out of a misplaced sense of bravado. We are not persuaded by his account of what he said to the woman who said she was a nurse.

1 B895

104.100 We have some hesitation in accepting the account given by Manus Morrison so long after the event. We have already observed that in our view he was mistaken in believing that people in Fahan Street West had flagged down the car in which Joe Friel was driven. His account of being shot with a rubber bullet immediately after getting out of the car and before starting to run away is not supported by the 1972 evidence of CIV 1, whose account was that Manus Morrison was running away when he was hit by a baton round, nor by that of Perpetua O’Neill, who recalled that the man was out of the car and being searched when the baton gun was fired.

104.101 We do not find it possible to state with certainty the exact circumstances in which Manus Morrison was hit by a baton round. However, in our view this probably was at close range as he attempted to run away, though it remains possible (from Perpetua O’Neill’s account) that Private 135 discharged his weapon (perhaps by accident) as he was searching Manus Morrison. However, whether or not he was running away, if the shot was fired deliberately, we do not see any justification for it. A baton gun was designed to be used to disperse rioters, not to fire at people running away.

104.102 Civilian witnesses dispute the evidence of the soldiers that Manus Morrison initially demanded to be let through the barrier because they were late for or wanted to get to work. However, we consider it likely that he or the driver did say something like this. Several soldiers recalled it; in particular Corporal 1501who, as we observe later in this report,2struck us as a careful, honest and reliable witness.

1 B1898 2Chapter 130

What happened to CIV 1 and Eugene O’Donnell

104.103 As we have already noted, Private 029 in his RMP statement described how he and Sergeant AA took these two civilians and put them up against a wall. This is consistent with the evidence of the civilians.1The wall was in Pitt Street, a side street which runs into Barrack Street.2

1 AD23.5; AO27.3

2 B1899

104.104 CIV 1, in his Keville interview, said that he was struck on the head with the butt of a rifle, apparently while he was being taken to the wall.1He was later the same day interviewed by Detective Constable Neilly. This statement appears to record that CIV 1 told this officer that he had been hit on the head twice with the butt of a rifle, once when he was pulled out of the car and again when he was at the wall, but the statement is not entirely clear, as on one reading it appears to suggest that CIV 1 was moved from one wall to another, which is unsupported by any other evidence. There may have been some misunderstanding by the statement taker.

1 AD23.5

104.105 CIV 1 submitted a complaint form to the RUC, in which it is recorded that he had a cut to the left-hand side of the skull. There is a record from Altnagelvin Hospital that CIV 1 was admitted for observation at 12.10am on 31st January 1972, with a cut to the left side of his head which he attributed to a blow by a rifle butt.1

1 D1112

104.106 CIV 1’s account of being hit over the head with a rifle butt as he was pulled out of the car is supported by the NICRA account of Eugene O’Donnell,1but there is nothing in this account to suggest that CIV 1 was hit again as they were held against the wall. Raymond Rogan and Hugh Leo Young were also held at this wall, but neither gave an account of seeing CIV 1 hit on the head while they were there. Hugh Leo Young told us that although soldiers threatened to shoot them if they moved The soldiers didn’t actually do anything to us ”.2

1 AD27.8

2 AY1.5

104.107 In these circumstances, while we accept that CIV 1 was hit on the head with a rifle butt as or after he was pulled from the car, we are not persuaded that he was physically assaulted again as he stood against the wall.

104.108 No soldier has admitted hitting CIV 1 with a rifle butt. Private 135 told us that it was possible that he struck a prisoner with the butt of his rubber bullet gun but did not recall doing so.1We have already observed that we cannot accept much of what Private 135 now says. On the 1972 evidence, he was, at least at one stage, on the other side of the car. In addition to Sergeant AA and Private 029 there were other soldiers in the area. We are unable to determine which soldier struck CIV 1, but can find nothing in the evidence to justify this blow.

1 Day 379/158

104.109 There is no doubt that the civilians taken from the two cars were the subject of verbal abuse and threats as they were taken from the cars and while they were being held against the wall in Pitt Street. It is not possible to identify the soldiers who used such language, though some did agree that strong language had been used.1As we have already observed, in the context of what happened on Bloody Sunday, we consider that the use of abusive and threatening language is not of the greatest significance, and though such language cannot be condoned, we note the view expressed by Sergeant AA in the course of his oral evidence to this Inquiry:2

“Q. Do you remember there were soldiers who were there who were gloating and making comments such as ‘one stiff’s not enough ’?

A. I did not actually hear that, but I could understand that sentiment.

Q. You could understand that sentiment?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Sorry, what do you mean by that answer?

A. Because for the two years we have had people shot, killed, blown up and abused and everything, for two years, by the Bogside and the Creggan. So if a soldier now and again he gets a bit – he comes out with stuff like that, you have got to expect it, because they are only working-class guys, they are just doing it – 18, 19 years old, 20 years old, that is how it was. ”

1 Day 378/216-220; Day 379/154-158; Day 380/17-18

2 Day 378/215

104.110 In their closing summation, Counsel to the Inquiry provided in summary form details of the threats and abuse allegedly directed at those taken from the cars.1We see no purpose in going through them in detail in this report.

1 CS6.909-910 2Chapter 130

104.111 We should say at this stage that it seems to have been suggested that the soldiers at Barrier 20 acted callously in not permitting the cars containing the casualties to proceed immediately through the barrier to the hospital.1In our view this is not a legitimate criticism. It seems to us that the arrival of two wounded people correctly aroused the soldiers’ suspicions, which can only have been compounded both by the false reason given initially for demanding that the barrier be opened and when one of the passengers ran away. In this regard we accept the evidence given by Sergeant AA:2

“I was interested also in trying to apprehend the people in the cars because, you know, when you suddenly turn up with two people, one is shot dead and one is shot through the chest and we do not know what happened in the Bogside. I am a soldier and my job is to apprehend and to stop anybody who might be involved in a terrorist action or in any action who has been shot, and to try and apprehend it. That was what I was doing. ”

1 FS1.2538; FS1.2545

2 Day 378/157

104.112 As it is, the cars were stopped at Barrier 20 for some ten minutes. We explain later in this report,1when considering the question of Gerald Donaghey and the nail bombs, how we reach this timing.

1 Chapter 130

104.113 Lance Corporal 104 drove Joe Friel in the car in which the latter had arrived at Barrier 20 to the Regimental Aid Post (RAP) at Craigavon Bridge. There he was given medical attention by an Army doctor (Captain 138) and was then taken by ambulance to Altnagelvin Hospital.1We deal below with the question of whether during his journey to the RAP Joe Friel admitted to Lance Corporal 104 that he had been in possession of a weapon when he was shot.

1 AF34.14

104.114 The four people taken from the cars and held against the wall in Pitt Street were taken to the RAP at Craigavon Bridge, arriving at about 1725 hours;1and from there to the RUC Headquarters at Victoria Barracks.2

1 C1347.18

2 AY1.9-10; AY1.5-6; WT6.13; Day 388/40-41; AR24.4; AR24.29; AR24.43-45; AD23.6-7; AO27.4

104.115 According to the Arrest Report Forms prepared at Fort George these four people were arrested by Corporal 150 for evading arrest by security forces ”. In other arrest forms Corporal 150 recorded that he had arrested these people at the barrier from two cars, each containing a body, and had handed the four arrestees to Sergeant Vernon Carson (RUC) at the bridge location ”, in other words at the RAP.

104.116 In his first RMP statement Corporal 150 described physically arresting the driver and front seat passenger, who were by now out of their vehicle. They did not have sufficient chance to run away from me. 1In the context of this statement as a whole, this is clearly a reference to the vehicle carrying Joe Friel, but Corporal 150 was mistaken in believing that one of these two men was the front seat passenger, as the evidence considered above shows that this was Manus Morrison, who ran away. He recorded that he took the two men to Pitt Street and ordered them to put their hands against the wall. He stated that he then returned to the barrier which was now open, saw Lance Corporal 104 driving the vehicle through, went to the other vehicle, and then drove this forward through the barrier. After driving this car to the RAP at Craigavon Bridge, Corporal 150 stated that he returned to Barrier 20 and then escorted four persons, including those whom he said that he had arrested, to the RMP operations room.2In the arrest documents Corporal 150 recorded that he had arrested two people from the first car; that his Platoon Sergeant had handed him the occupants of the second car; and he had then arrested the the latter.

1 B1899

2 B1900

104.117 In a subsequent RMP statement, Corporal 150 recorded that he recognised CIV 1 and Eugene O’Donnell as the two whom he had arrested and that he believed the other two he escorted to the RMP had come from the other car. They were arrested by other members of my platoon, whose names are not known to me. 1

1 B1902

104.118 So far as CIV 1 and Eugene O’Donnell are concerned, we accept that Corporal 150 was involved in their arrest. The 1972 statement of Sergeant AA supports his account.1Although he had stated in his first RMP statement that these two had had no chance to run away from him, the same statement records that before these arrests and as he ran through the barrier towards the cars he heard someone shouting that the occupants of the cars were trying to escape.2In fact, only Manus Morrison tried to escape (and succeeded in doing so), but Corporal 150, when compiling the arrest forms, may well have relied on what he had heard when recording that the arrests were made because the persons concerned were evading arrest ”; and whoever shouted may have believed (mistakenly) that it was not only Manus Morrison who was trying to get away.

1 B896

2 B1899

104.119 On his own account Corporal 150 did not arrest Raymond Rogan and Hugh Leo Young, and the former in his evidence to the Widgery Inquiry made this point.1However, in the arrest form relating to these two, Corporal 150 stated that he had been handed these people by his Platoon Sergeant whereupon I arrested them ”. In his RMP statement Sergeant AA recorded that he did not know who had arrested these people.2The 1972 evidence of Private 135 was that he told Raymond Rogan and Hugh Leo Young to get out of the car, after which he held onto the wing mirror to prevent the car rolling back while the driver and passenger were taken away to Pitt Street.3It may be that the reason Corporal 150 signed these arrest forms was because he was the soldier who had escorted them from Barrier 20. Corporal 150 was not asked about this matter when he gave evidence to this Inquiry, as his testimony was (correctly) directed to the much more important matter of what he could tell us about Gerald Donaghey. We return to his evidence in this regard later in this report.4

1 AR24.29

2 B986

3 B1834

4 Chapter 130

104.120 Raymond Rogan told this Inquiry that they were told at the RAP that they had been arrested under the Special Powers Act.1He told the Widgery Inquiry that he was informed that he was being detained under this Act because explosives had been found in his car.2

1 AR24.4

2 AR24.29-30

104.121 Raymond Rogan also told us that he and the others were searched at the RAP with a device that detected traces of explosive, and after being photographed were taken to RUC headquarters. He and the others were in a cell for some time. He there identified himself as Chairman of the local tenants’ association and asked the police to contact Inspector McCullough, whom he knew. After about half an hour, I was released. 1CIV 1 and Eugene O’Donnell were also told at Victoria Barracks that they were free to go. The latter recalled that they had been in the cell for about two hours before they were released at about 10pm.2Hugh Leo Young was taken from Victoria Barracks to Ballykelly (a police holding station to the north-east of Londonderry) and released the following day, when he was told in brutal terms that his brother was one of those killed on Bloody Sunday.3

1 AR24.4

2 AD23.7; AO27.4

3 AY1.10; AY1.6

104.122 In our view the soldiers at Barrier 20 cannot fairly be criticised for stopping the two vehicles containing the casualties and detaining CIV 1, Eugene O’Donnell, Raymond Rogan and Hugh Leo Young. We can find no justification for the firing of the baton round that struck Manus Morrison or the blow with a rifle butt to the head of CIV 1.

The allegation that Joe Friel admitted that he had been armed when he was shot

104.123 We now turn to consider the allegation made in 1972, that on his way to hospital Joe Friel admitted to a soldier that he had been armed when he was shot, something that Joe Friel has always denied.1

1 WT6.39; Day 155/72-73

104.124 Lance Corporal 104 (a member of 1 R ANGLIAN) was on duty at Barrier 20 when the vehicles arrived. In his RMP statement, timed at 2340 hours on 30th January 1972, he recorded that after the civilians had got out of both cars, he looked into the back of them and saw in each a person lying on the back seat.1 He continued:2

“I got into the driving seat of the first car and I drove it along Barrack Street, past the road block, for about 200 metres. When I stopped, the youth who was lying on the back seat asked me to take him to Altnagelvin Hospital. I could see that he had a serious chest injury and that he appeared to be in considerable pain.

When the youth, who appeared to be quite lucid, asked me to take him to hospital, I asked him what he had been up to. He said that he had been shot, and I told him that I could see that and that he shouldn’t have been playing with guns. I asked how he had been shot and he said that he had a gun and was carrying it when he walked round a corner and bumped into some soldiers, one of whom shot him. He did not say where the incident had occurred nor did he say what sort of gun he had been carrying,

but he did say that he had never done that sort of thing before and that he would not do it again. I asked him what had happened to his gun, and he said that he did not know.

At that stage, the youth again asked me to take him to hospital, and I drove him in the car to the bridge location where some medical orderlies took the youth out of the car and put him into an APC. I did not see the youth again after that. ”

1 B1680-1681

2 B1681

104.125 Lance Corporal 104 gave written and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry. In his written statement he recorded that his Platoon Commander ordered him to move the car, which had a defective hand brake. As a result, Lance Corporal 104 drove the car through the barricade and about 40m beyond to the top of a hill.1 He was then told to drive the car to Company Headquarters. He continued:2

“I pulled just round onto the main road but I could not go without an escort – it was too dangerous to do so. The injured man then asked me to take him to a hospital. I told him that I couldn’t go on my own. I asked him what he had been doing. He wouldn’t tell me outright. And then he said his wounds hurt him. I said ‘If you didn’t play with guns you wouldn’t get hurt’. He said that it was his first time and he wouldn’t do it again. I asked him how he had got his wounds. He said he just walked round the corner and that was it. He said that he had a gun, but that he had not fired it. He kept on asking to go to the hospital, and I saw a RUC policeman near and asked him to go with me to the hospital. ”

1 B1690

2 B1690

104.126 Lance Corporal 104 recorded in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry that after these conversations he did not drive to the Company Headquarters but went instead to the RAP at Craigavon Bridge.1

1 B1690

104.127 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, Lance Corporal 104 stated that he recognised Joe Friel, whom he had earlier seen giving his evidence, as the injured man from the car.1 Lance Corporal 104 gave the following account of the conversation that they had had as they waited for an escort to go to the RAP:2

“Q. What did he say?

A. I asked him what he was doing and he said he had walked round a corner and he got shot. I said to him ‘You shouldn’t play with guns’. He said ‘I wouldn’t do it again’. Then he asked me my name and I would not tell him and he asked me to take him to hospital.

Q. Is that all that was said?

A. I think so, sir.

Q. Now did he say what he had had with him when he was wounded?

A. Yes, he said he had a gun. ”

1 WT17.43

2 WT17.42

104.128 Under cross-examination by counsel representing the families, Lance Corporal 104 accepted that there were Army investigators present at Craigavon Bridge, but said that he did not tell them of Joe Friel’s confession that he had been armed.1 When asked whether he had told any RUC officers, Lance Corporal 104 said that he may have mentioned it to the bloke on the way down , by which he clearly meant the escort, but he agreed that it could be that he did not tell any policemen either.2 He did state, however, that he informed his Platoon Commander when he got back to his unit.3

1 WT17.48-49

2 WT17.49

3 WT17.49

104.129 Lieutenant 145, who was Lance Corporal 104’s Platoon Commander, gave an RMP statement1and a written statement for the Widgery Inquiry.2There is nothing in these accounts to indicate that Lance Corporal 104 told him about Joe Friel’s alleged confession.

1 B1876

2 B1881

104.130 The police officer who accompanied Lance Corporal 104 was Constable Alexander Malone. He made a report, dated 4th February 1972, in which he referred to the journey to Craigavon Bridge but made no mention of being told that Joe Friel had confessed to being in possession of a weapon.1 Constable Malone gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry, but stated that he could not recall any conversation that he had between leaving Barrier 20 and arriving at the RAP.2

1 JM5.9

2 JM5.3; Day 219/122; Day 219/131

104.131 Lance Corporal 104 gave a written statement to this Inquiry in which he recorded that while he thought he had had a conversation with the wounded man whom he drove to Craigavon Bridge, he could no longer recall the details of it.1 He also commented on his RMP evidence, stating that although he did not remember a discussion about a gun, he had no reason to think that the conversation in my 1972 statements is wrong ”.2 He added that when he was interviewed by the RMP, I did not know the full extent of what had happened on that day, so I had no reason or desire to lie about Joseph Friel ”.3

1 B1705.003

2 B1705.004

3 B1705.004

104.132 We wished to hear the oral evidence of Lance Corporal 104, but he stopped communicating with his legal representatives, went abroad, did not respond to letters from the Inquiry and could not be traced.1

1 Day 380/1-6; Day 382/131-9

104.133 Detective Sergeant Cudmore, who interviewed Joe Friel in Altnagelvin Hospital on 1st February 1972,1prepared an internal memorandum about this interview. In this he wrote that Joe Friel was:2

“the man from whom the Army obtained a verbal admission of using/having a gun, although he would not admit same to us. Friel’s statement varies little from the Army’s version other than the admission, and I am convinced that he did admit this to the soldier. Because of his injury and location he was not pressed about this admission. ”

1 AF34.10

2 AF34.12

104.134 There is nothing in the statement that Joe Friel gave that evening to suggest that he was asked specifically about this admission, although in it he did deny that at any time he had any weapon or object on his person or in his hand.1

1 AF34.11

104.135 Detective Sergeant Cudmore gave a written statement to this Inquiry.1In this he commented on his memorandum. The report goes on to say that I was convinced that he did admit this to the soldier. I have no recollection of being convinced that what he told the soldier was correct. Detective Sergeant Cudmore appears to be saying that he could not recall believing that the admission was true, rather than that he could not recall believing that the admission had been made, though it may be that he meant the latter. He did not give oral evidence to this Inquiry. Detective Constable Gillanders, who accompanied Detective Sergeant Cudmore, was unable to help on this topic in his evidence to this Inquiry.2

1 JC26.10

2 JG4.6

104.136 In our view Joe Friel did not admit to Lance Corporal 104 that when wounded he was in possession of a gun. It is apparent from Lance Corporal 104’s oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry that, despite his previous statements, it took a leading question to elicit from him that Joe Friel had made this admission. Lance Corporal 104 did not say anything to the authorities at Craigavon Bridge and in our view had he said anything about an admission to Constable Malone, the latter would have written it in his report. There is material to suggest that Lance Corporal 104 was at the time regarded as an unsatisfactory witness by Detective Inspector McNeill, who attended the Widgery Inquiry hearings, and who reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions that Lance Corporal 104 did not come up to strength on his evidence … regarding the alleged admission ”.1

1 OS1.197

104.137 There is nothing to suggest that the police ever interviewed Joe Friel again about this alleged admission. He was neither cautioned nor arrested, and we accept his evidence to the Widgery Inquiry that he was not placed under armed guard, nor were his clothes examined by the RUC or the Army.1Thus whatever the reason for Detective Sergeant Cudmore’s view, it did not result in the police taking any further action.

1 WT6.35-36

What Joe Friel was doing when he was shot

104.138 In our view Joe Friel was unarmed when he was shot in Glenfada Park North close to the south-west exit to Abbey Park. There is no evidence that he was doing anything that could have led anyone to believe that he was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. In our view he was simply trying to get away.

Michael Quinn

104.139 Michael Quinn was shot in the face when he was in Glenfada Park North.

Biographical details and prior movements

104.140 Michael Quinn was 17 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday and was still at school.1On 30th January 1972, he joined the civil rights march in the Creggan and subsequently made his way to Glenfada Park North.2There he was shot and received a facial wound. Michael Quinn was taken to Altnagelvin Hospital, where he was operated upon the following day. He was discharged on 10th February 1972.3

1 AQ11.19; AQ11.7

2 AQ11.19

3 AQ11.50-51

104.141 On Bloody Sunday Michael Quinn was wearing what he described to the Widgery Inquiry as a rust coloured windcheater ”.1He is shown, lying on the ground after his injury, in the following photograph.2He had a white handkerchief or scarf round his neck.

1 AQ11.9

Medical and scientific evidence

104.142 According to his medical records, Michael Quinn received a gunshot wound to his right cheek, the entry point being just below his right molar , the bullet travelling above the roots of the upper right molar, and traversing across the face before exiting through the left side of Michael Quinn’s nose.1 The injuries can be seen in the photographs reproduced above and below, which were taken on the day.

1 D917; D908-941

104.143 Michael Quinn’s medical records, and the accompanying X-rays, also recorded that he had foreign material in his septum and mouth. His surgeon, Mr Harvey, commented that this material appeared to be lead pellets ”.1 These were sent for examination at the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science, where Dr John Martin commented that they were several small spherical pieces of a brittle black non-metallic substance ”, which contained no bullet or bullet fragment ”.2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan concluded that there was insufficient evidence to form any conclusions on the origin of this material.3

1 D943; D935

2 D944-D947

3 E10.9

104.144 In a report for this Inquiry, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan presented an analysis of the damage caused to the clothes worn by Michael Quinn on Bloody Sunday.1 This recorded that there was damage to the right-hand shoulder of his jacket, and they concluded that this might have been caused by the same bullet that injured Michael Quinn’s face, though it was equally possible that the damage to Michael Quinn’s jacket was caused by a different round from that which caused his facial injuries.2 However, as will be seen below, Michael Quinn himself ascribed the damage to his jacket as caused by the same bullet that hit his face, so that we consider that the jacket damage was probably not caused by an additional bullet.

1 E22.1-2

2 E22.1-2

Where and when Michael Quinn was shot

Accounts given by Michael Quinn

104.145 Michael Quinn gave a number of accounts in 1972:

a) An interview with Detective Sergeant Cudmore on 7th February 1972.1

b) A statement taken by his solicitor dated 17th February 1972.2

c) Written and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.3

d) An interview with the Sunday Times journalists Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobson, the notes of which are dated 1st March 1972.4

1 AQ11.47-48

2 AQ11.17-18

3 AQ11.7-9; AQ11.63-65; WT7.71-76

4 AQ11.10-16

104.146 In addition, Michael Quinn gave an interview to Don Mullan in August 1998,1and gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.2

1 AQ11.80-87

2 AQ11.19-79; Day 169/50-147

104.147 Detective Sergeant Cudmore recorded in a note of his interview that Michael Quinn declined at that stage to make a statement to the police, and inferred that this was because Michael Quinn did not want to admit to having been on the march.1Michael Quinn did, however, answer a number of questions, although not the one relating to what he was doing in the area at the time. In his responses he said that he had been injured by a gunshot on 30th January and that it had happened when he was running to get out of Glenfada Park. He added that he was shot from behind, and that the bullet pierced my jacket at the right shoulder and grazed my face ”.2Michael Quinn also agreed that his hospital records could be released.

1 AQ11.47

2 AQ11.48

104.148 In the statement taken by his solicitor,1Michael Quinn described sheltering at the back wall of McLaughlin’s Hardware Store from the gas he thought was being fired by the Army from the direction of Little James Street into the Rossville Street area. He stated that some “Saracen” armoured cars then passed by him and travelled over Rossville Street and he started to run across the waste ground towards the front of the Rossville Flats. He climbed over the rubble barricade and as he did so he heard what he took to be shots fired by the Army. He then joined a small crowd of people standing at the gable wall of Glenfada Park, but after a short while went around into the small car park at the rear of Glenfada Park, where he remained for some minutes.2

1 AQ11.17-18

2 AQ11.17

104.149 Michael Quinn stated that while he was there the shooting began again and he saw a man of about 19 or 20 who was shot in the right leg at the entrance to the small alleyway which leads from the carpark into Abbey Park ”.1 None of those known to have been injured in Glenfada Park North was shot in the leg, and hence Michael Quinn’s evidence on this point might relate to an unknown casualty. This matter is discussed further elsewhere in this report.2

1 AQ11.17 2Chapter 110

104.150 Michael Quinn continued in this statement by recording that the shooting then stopped.1He stated that The place was fairly crowded with people and that he remained there for another couple of minutes, but the shooting then resumed and the people who were standing at the gable wall at Glenfada Park/Rossville Street, rushed into the carpark at Glenfada Park where I was standing ”.2Michael Quinn continued:3

“The shooting ceased again after some seconds during which it appeared to me that a large number of rounds had been fired. Just then a small crowd of people carrying the body of a man, who was wearing a blue anorak, crossed the carpark and went into the back of one of the houses at Glenfada Park. After some hesitation, I decided to get out of Glenfada Park. I ran across towards the alleyway leading into Abbey Park and as I was nearing this entrance I felt myself being struck on the right cheek by a bullet. I stumbled but got up and ran on through the alleyway. As I was passing through I noticed the man who I had seen being shot earlier lying in the shadows of a nook in the alleyway. When I reached Abbey Park, someone grabbed me by the arm and we kept on running through Abbey Park and across the old Bogside towards Lisfannon Park. ”

1 AQ11.17

2 AQ11.18

3 AQ11.18

104.151 Michael Quinn then described how he was given first aid from Order of Malta Ambulance Corps volunteers in Blucher Street, after which he was taken by car to the first aid post at St Mary’s School in the Creggan, and from there by car to Altnagelvin Hospital. He said that he had not been armed at any stage with a gun, nail bomb, petrol bomb, stone or any other implement.1

1 AQ11.18

104.152 Michael Quinn’s written statement for the Widgery Inquiry1was in the same terms as that taken by his solicitor, though at the end he added that the coat he was wearing had been cut on the shoulder by the bullet that hit his cheek.2He also stated that From the direction I was running the shot must have come from the opposite corner of Glenfada Park ”.3He subsequently produced this coat (a rust coloured windcheater) and in a further short statement agreed that it could be tested for signs of it having recently been in contact with weapons of any kind ”.4There is no evidence to suggest that any such tests were ever conducted.

1 AQ11.60-61

2 AQ11.61

3 AQ11.61

4 AQ11.62

104.153 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, and in contrast to his written statement, Michael Quinn said that he had no idea of the source of the shot that struck him.1He also stated that he did not hear any ricochet before he was hit.2He told the Widgery Inquiry that the young man he saw shot in the leg was not Joe Friel, whom he knew, and that this person had no weapon of any sort on him.3Again, we return to consider this part of Michael Quinn’s evidence later in this report.4

1 WT7.73

2 WT7.75

3 AQ11.60; WT7.71-74

4 Chapter 110

104.154 According to the Sunday Times notes of an interview with Michael Quinn,1he had joined the march at Bishop’s Field. He described the scene at Barrier 14 and said that he had met a friend in Chamberlain Street. He then gave an account in similar terms to his earlier statements, though when he came to describe what happened in Glenfada Park North the journalists made the comment from here his recollection of sequence of events becomes confused, but he is clear about what he saw ”.2

1 AQ11.10

2 AQ11.11

104.155 At the end of these notes the journalists recorded that Michael Quinn had given them certain information about paramilitary activity that he had observed in Glenfada Park North.1This is a matter to which we return later in this report.2

1 AQ11.12 2Chapter 111

104.156 The material from the Sunday Times also includes a memorandum dealing with Michael Quinn.1This contains an account of Michael Quinn’s movements in Glenfada Park North, but adds a detail that did not appear in any of his earlier statements, namely that: he stumbled and just beside him james wray (who he now recognises from the pix) fell beside him and hit his head of the kerb of the footpath. but quinn regained his balance and staggered through the passage into abbey park. 2It is not clear how the journalist came to include this detail about Jim Wray, but from the reference to Michael Quinn recognising him from the pix it is reasonable to infer that at some stage this was information that he gave to the journalists.

1 AQ11.13-14

2 AQ11.13

104.157 The interview conducted by Don Mullan in 19981added nothing material to the accounts that Michael Quinn had given in 1972.

1 AQ11.80-87

104.158 In his written evidence to this Inquiry,1Michael Quinn described how he had been drenched by the water cannon in William Street.2He also recalled that a man he later learned was Jim Wray told him to take one end of the civil rights banner and go with him onto the waste ground north of William Street, which he did for about two minutes.3Michael Quinn then gave a similar description to his 1972 accounts of how he moved over the rubble barricade and then decided to take shelter in Glenfada Park North.4At this stage he gave a description of what appeared to be paramilitary activity, and of the man he saw fall in the south-west corner,5matters to which we return later in this report.6

1 AQ11.19-79

2 AQ11.19-20

3 AQ11.20

4 AQ11.20-22

5 AQ11.22-23

6 Chapter 111

104.159 Michael Quinn identified himself standing next to a fence on the eastern side of Glenfada Park North in the photograph below, which also shows the group carrying Michael Kelly across the car park.

1 AQ11.25-26

104.160 He recorded in his written statement to this Inquiry that as those carrying Michael Kelly made their way towards the south-west corner, a crowd surged into Glenfada Park and he heard someone shout that the Army were coming in.1 Michael Quinn decided to run for Abbey Park, and stated that he was not conscious of people around him as he did so.2 He continued:3

“I must have been quite close to the exit in the southwest corner of Glenfada Park when I was shot in the face. I recall a raised footpath and then I felt a very hard thump in the face … I had been running bent over and did not look back at all … I do not recall hearing the shot that hit me and I did not at any stage as I was running look back and see any soldiers. ”

1 AQ11.23

2 AQ11.23

3 AQ11.23

104.161 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, he clarified that he had not reached the raised footpath by the time he was shot.1

1 Day 169/88

104.162 Michael Quinn also stated that he recalled that as he stumbled after being shot, he saw a man’s head hitting the ground just in front of him. He recognised the man as the person who had held the NICRA banner with him and one of those who had been around the group carrying the body in Glenfada Park North.1Michael Quinn told us that he came to believe that this was Jim Wray, and we are satisfied that this identification is correct.

1 AQ11.24

What Michael Quinn was doing when he was shot

104.163 As will have been seen, Michael Quinn has given consistent accounts of the circumstances in which he came to be shot on Bloody Sunday. In our view we can place reliance on those accounts. In summary, we accept that he was running for the alleyway into Abbey Park when he was shot in the face by a bullet that had probably first gone through the right shoulder of his windcheater; that he did not see who fired the bullet that hit him; that he saw Jim Wray fall; and that he then staggered on through the alleyway into Abbey Park. We are sure that Michael Quinn was not armed with any weapon on Bloody Sunday, nor behaving in a way that could lead anyone to believe that he was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury.

What happened to Michael Quinn after he was shot

104.164 Throughout his evidence Michael Quinn stated that after he was shot he stumbled but managed to run through the alleyway into Abbey Park.1He told this Inquiry that once there he was helped first by a man whom he did not know, and then by two school friends, Bernard McAnaney and Gerry Roddy.2His 1972 evidence was to similar effect.3Michael Quinn was taken to Blucher Street (mistakenly transcribed as Butcher Street in some of his 1972 evidence), where he was treated by members of the Order of Malta Ambulance Corps, as is shown in several photographs taken at this time.4He was driven by car to a first aid post at St Mary’s School in the Creggan, and then by ambulance to Altnagelvin Hospital.5We accept Michael Quinn’s account of what he did and what happened to him after he was shot. We are also satisfied that Brendan Deehan assisted Michael Quinn by finding a car in which he could be taken to hospital and that Charles McLaughlin went with Michael Quinn in the car to the first aid post.6

1 WT7.73; AQ11.8; AQ11.11-12; AQ11.13; AQ11.18; AQ11.24

2 AQ11.24; Day 169/91-97

3 AQ11.8; WT7.73; AQ11.11-12; AQ11.18

4 WT7.73; AQ11.8; AQ11.12; AQ11.18; AQ11.24; AQ11.86-87; CS6.286

5 AQ11.8; AQ11.18; AQ11.24-25; AD20.11;
Day 155/164-166; AM321.4-5; Day 177/90-92; ED50.4

6 AD20.11; AM321.4-5

Daniel Gillespie

Biographical details

104.165 Daniel Gillespie was 32 at the time of Bloody Sunday.1He was an unemployed steel erector.2He joined the civil rights march in William Street and subsequently made his way to Barrier 14.3His later movements and the nature and extent of the wound that he received that day are discussed in detail below.

1 AG34.6

2 AG34.23; AG34.18

3 AG34.6; AG34.18

Medical evidence

104.166 There are no contemporary medical records relating to Daniel Gillespie. However, Dr Domhnall MacDermott told this Inquiry that he recalled treating “a boy ”, whose name he did not know, for a minor head wound in a house somewhere in the general area of Lisfannon Park, Abbey Park and Glenfada Park, or possibly in Francis Street.1 Dr MacDermott recalled that this casualty, who he thought might have been in his early twenties,2 told him that he “had been peeping around a wall and that he had seen a brick in the wall splinter when hit by a bullet and he assumed that a splinter of brick had hit him on the forehead ”.3 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Dr MacDermott recorded that he saw that his patient’s forehead had actually been grazed by a bullet.4 However, in his oral evidence, Dr MacDermott appeared to suggest that a fragment of masonry had injured the casualty.5 In any event, the wound was very small and Dr MacDermott was able to treat it, after cleaning, by using two strips of Elastoplast.6 Dr MacDermott did not give any evidence in 1972 of this incident, and understandably his recollections so many years later are not entirely clear.

1 AM5.5

2 Day 176/186

3 AM5.5

4 AM5.5

5 Day 176/184-186; Day 176/207-208

6 AM5.5

Where, when and how Daniel Gillespie was wounded

Accounts given by Daniel Gillespie

104.167 Daniel Gillespie did not make any statement in 1972, although he did speak to the Sunday Times Insight Team.1He was interviewed by the television production company Praxis Films Ltd in the early 1990s,2and by Paul Mahon3and Don Mullan4in 1998.

1 AG34.17

2 AG34.18

3 X4.11.1-49

4 AG34.23-32

104.168 Daniel Gillespie gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.1In his written statement he told us that he was in Rossville Street when the Army vehicles came in.2He told us that he recalled that he ran south, over the rubble barricade and into Glenfada Park North, where he saw the group of people carrying Michael Kelly.3He said that he had no recollection of Michael Kelly being put down as he was carried across the car park and into Abbey Park.4Daniel Gillespie said that he followed the group into Abbey Park and then returned to Glenfada Park North, at a time when there were not a lot of people in the alleyway, so that he easily got through and back again.5He told us that after moving to the centre of the courtyard, he turned back and saw a group of boys coming through the south-west alleyway carrying broken flagstones that he assumed they intended to throw at the soldiers; and that he told the boys that live rounds had been fired and that they should go to a safe place.6He stated that he turned towards Rossville Street and at that point noticed a paratrooper standing at the north-east corner of Glenfada Park North; and that the paratrooper had his gun at his shoulder and was pointing it at him.7

1 AG34.6-11; Day 158/16-88; Day 159/162-168

2 AG34.7-8

3 AG34.7

4 Day 158/66-67

5 Day 158/61-62; AG34.8

6 AG34.8

7 AG34.8-9

104.169 Daniel Gillespie stated in his written evidence that he started to run towards the entrance to Rossville Street, but as did so he heard a sharp crack and realised that he had been hit.1His oral evidence was that he did not in fact run before he was shot, but was standing facing the soldier.2He told us that he recalled that he fell forwards suffering from a head wound; and that on regaining his senses he saw that two of the boys he had spoken to had come to his aid. As they lifted him up there was another shot from the soldier at the northern end of Glenfada Park and the taller of the two boys groaned, apparently shot.3In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Daniel Gillespie said that he heard this shot, but he could not be sure that he saw it.4His account was that this boy fell on him and pushed him back onto the ground.5Daniel Gillespie stated that he pushed the now still boy from his legs, got up and ran into Abbey Park and on to the Credit Union building.6There he met Joe Moran and Michael Canavan.7They assisted him back to his house in the area of Lisfannon Park, where he found his wife.8Daniel Gillespie told us that he subsequently went to Vinny Coyle’s house for medical treatment and that there a doctor and an Order of Malta Ambulance Corps member shaved his head so that the wound could be cleaned.9He stated that he did not go to hospital, as he was frightened of being arrested if he did so.10

1 AG34.9

2 Day 158/46

3 AG34.9

4 Day 158/50-52

5 AG34.9

6 AG34.9

7 AG34.9

8 AG34.9

9 AG34.9-10

10 AG34.10

104.170 Peter Pringle of the Sunday Times Insight Team told this Inquiry that he assumed that he had interviewed Daniel Gillespie.1 Having seen his handwritten notes2 and a typed memorandum under his initials dated 6th April,3 we are satisfied that he did so. The memorandum recorded the following:4

“danny gillespie, 31, … was shot in glenfada park a few feet from the alley way leading into abbey park. it may have been the same fusilade which hit friel. it was the first time soldiers had been seen in the park. he saw the soldier come into the opening in the nor’east corner. the one in front had a sterling and then there were two with slrs. one of these went down on one knee and fired two or three shots. he felt a bang on his head and started to bleed profusely. he carried on running a few steps and then stumbled in the alley way itself. he was not treated by any k.o.m. [Knight of Malta]. he went home and sprinkled antiseptic powder on it. was seen at the cable st. corner by canavan and others. there is no more than a small scratch on his head. ”

1 Day 190/37-38

2 M68.149-150; Day 190/38-39

3 AG34.17

4 AG34.17

104.171 During his evidence to this Inquiry, Daniel Gillespie was asked about Peter Pringle’s note.1Daniel Gillespie said that he had not made a statement to anyone;2that it was not possible that he was shot further over towards the alleyway leading into Abbey Park;3that he was never conscious of a soldier with a Sterling gun;4but that he did recall stumbling in the south-west alleyway.5

1 AG34.17

2 Day 158/55-56

3 Day 158/55

4 Day 158/56

5 Day 158/56

104.172 We are satisfied that the Sunday Times Insight Team did interview Daniel Gillespie and accurately recorded what he had told them.

104.173 In the early 1990s Daniel Gillespie gave an interview to Praxis Films Ltd.1According to the Praxis notes he had seen the soldiers get out of their vehicles in Rossville Street and had then moved past Glenfada Park North into Abbey Park. There he met three other men who were throwing stones at the soldiers . He moved with them back into Glenfada Park. As they ran in, the three men with him were ready to throw stones. As they entered the park, Daniel Gillespie saw a soldier at the other end’ of the courtyard. Daniel Gillespie was just running when this soldier shot him, the bullet hitting his head after coming off a wall. He was knocked unconscious, and when he awoke another man was lying across him. He was disoriented, but raised himself and stood against a wall for support. He noticed that two other men had been shot – one to his right, and one further away who was trying to raise himself. Two men then came to Daniel Gillespie and helped him away and then to his home.

1 AG34.18

104.174 Daniel Gillespie told us that he remembered being interviewed by Praxis Films Ltd. He said, however, that he had not re-entered Glenfada Park North with youths carrying stones and he did not recollect the bullet that hit him first hitting a wall. He said he had not steadied himself against a wall after being shot, and that he had not noticed two other people near him who had also been shot.1

1 Day 159/163-166

104.175 We accept the evidence of Tony Stark of the Praxis team, that he recorded what Daniel Gillespie had told him.1

1 Day 234/156

104.176 Don Mullan interviewed Daniel Gillespie in August 1998.1Daniel Gillespie gave a similar, although less detailed account to the one contained in his written statement to this Inquiry.

1 AG34.23-32

104.177 Paul Mahon also interviewed Daniel Gillespie, but we have found nothing of assistance in this interview.1

1 X4.11.1-49

Accounts given by other witnesses

104.178 The Sunday Times archive also contained what appears to be the transcript of an interview with Michael Canavan, the civil rights activist whom Daniel Gillespie recalled seeing shortly after he had been shot.1 According to this document, Michael Canavan and two companions were at the top of the Old Bog Road (Fahan Street West), close to the Credit Union building when:2

“… this fellow rounded the corner with blood all over his face. And I recognised him. He was Daniel Gillespie and he lives beside Vinny Coyle. I had met him for the first time the previous day. I said ‘Daniel, what’s happening down there? ’ And he said ‘There’s something terrible happening down there. Myself and three others were going round a corner and we met a soldier with a sten gun and he opened fire.’ And he said: ‘I dont know how I got up here.’ Then he said ‘Look at my head’. His head was split a short distance and blood was pouring out of it. And he said ‘Thats what you and your bloody well civil rights march get us, today.’ And I said ‘Well, I’m nothing to do with this. I’m only taking part in it like you.’ ‘But come on, let’s get you into the nearest house and well get it cleaned up and see how badly you’re wounded.’ So we went to the nearest house and the people just opened the door for us, and in a couple of minutes it was obvious that he had just been grazed by a bullet. And I said what happened to the other three boys? And he said I dont know I blacked out completely and I’ve forgotten what happened between then and the time I got up here.’ But he said ‘I think they were shot ’. He had run up round from Abbey Park. He was off home round the corner after that, he was all right. ”

1 KC4.1-8

2 KC4.5

104.179 Later in this interview Michael Canavan said that Joe Moran was one of the people with him.1As noted above, Daniel Gillespie has said that he did meet and was assisted by Michael Canavan and Joe Moran near the Credit Union building. Joe Moran is dead and Michael Canavan was too ill to give evidence to this Inquiry.

1 KC4.5

104.180 Anthony Martin was 34 at the time of Bloody Sunday. In an article in the Irish Times dated 1st February 1972, the journalist Dick Grogan reported that Anthony Martin had said at a press conference that Daniel Gillespie received a scalp wound from a bullet from a low velocity weapon like a Sterling, when they were going to the aid of wounded people.1

1 L115; Day 176/126

104.181 Anthony Martin also gave a NICRA statement1and was interviewed by Peter Pringle of the Sunday Times Insight Team, whose notes of the interview are dated 29th March 1972.2

1 AM24.1

2 AM24.3

104.182 In his NICRA statement Anthony Martin described (among other things) going from what appears to have been the area of Lisfannon Park to Abbey Park after men on the north side of Fahan Street West had shouted for help to take the wounded into cover. In this he recorded:1

“We went to where the bodies were lying. There were four bodies. On reaching the nearest body, we lifted it and began to carry it to the cover of houses but gun-fire was directed upon us. We had to lower the body to the ground and squatted for cover. I could tell that these shots were low-velocity because they did not make the same noise as a high-velocity bullet on striking the wall. ”

1 AM24.2

104.183 He made no mention of Daniel Gillespie in this statement.

104.184 However, in Peter Pringle’s interview notes, Anthony Martin is recorded as saying that he went into the alleyway between Abbey Park and Glenfada Park and found a man lying there who he afterwards discovered was William McKinney. He said they picked this man up and took him to 7 Abbey Park. He then said that they went back to get a body that:1

“… was lying on the little ramps on the edge of the pavement in glenfada park. as we went into the alleyway some others were carrying the body of joseph mahon (who was only injured) out of the park. there were soldiers in the park at the time and as we left the cover of the alleyway to get wray’s body we were fired on and the two bullets smacked into the wall … just after the two shots had been fired the guy who was next to me held his head and blood started pouring out of a scalp wound right on the crown of his head. i know now that his name is gillespi [sic]. i said to him, fuck your head wound lets get this body in. we managed to get it out of the park and took it into the first house (No. 8) on the corner of abbey park. ”

1 AM24.5

104.185 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Anthony Martin gave various accounts of this incident. In his written evidence he suggested that the shots were fired at his group as they picked up the first casualty, William McKinney.1 However, during his oral evidence he told us that he recalled that William McKinney had already been moved by that stage, and that the shots were fired when they were attending to Joe Mahon.2 He later accepted that he could be wrong on this matter. In response to what was in his NICRA statement, which recorded that he removed only one body from the area, he said that he had no control over the statement after it had been written down in longhand and read back to him, and seemed to us to be doubting its accuracy in its typed-up form.3

1 AM24.12

2 Day 176/84-86

3 Day 176/97-98

104.186 Anthony Martin identified himself as one of the men carrying the body of William McKinney, as shown in the photograph below.1

1 AM24.12; AM24.15

104.187 Another photograph shows Joe Mahon being carried from Glenfada Park by two people – almost certainly Leo Day and Eddie Shiels. It is possible that Anthony Martin took over from one of these men, but there is no positive evidence from the film footage of the following moments that this was the case.1

1 Vid 19 03.47

104.188 Anthony Martin told this Inquiry that a soldier who had a pistol fired the shots. However, he was equivocal as to whether he actually saw this weapon, or assumed that it was a pistol either from the sound, or because only a limited amount of masonry was dislodged from the wall that it struck, or because he saw a soldier in a kneeling position without a rifle.1 He identified the general area where he said the bullets had struck (as shown in the photograph below).2

1 AM24.12; Day 176/86-87; Day 176/111-112;
Day 176/126-128

2 AM24.29; Day 176/95

104.189 Anthony Martin again referred to a man who he later learned was called Gillespie being hit on the head.1 He said that he believed that he and Gillespie carried William McKinney into Abbey Park, and that he then returned to help with moving Joe Mahon and Jim Wray. He also said that he had the vague impression that a fourth body might have been present, possibly on the western side of the courtyard.2

1 AM24.12; Day 176/88

2 AM24.12; Day 176/85; Day 176/129-130; AM24.31

104.190 Daniel Gillespie stated to this Inquiry that Anthony Martin’s accounts did not accurately reflect the incident in which he was injured, and that he (Daniel Gillespie) did not help in assisting the Glenfada Park casualties.1

1 Day 158/77-80

104.191 There are a number of other problems with Anthony Martin’s accounts.

104.192 As already noted, there is no mention of the injury to Daniel Gillespie in Anthony Martin’s NICRA statement.

104.193 The photographic evidence of the movement of Jim Wray and William McKinney established that they were moved at the same time, and that this was after Joe Mahon had been carried from Glenfada Park. Anthony Martin’s evidence to the Sunday Times and to this Inquiry is inconsistent with this sequence, whereas his NICRA statement (in which there is no reference to Daniel Gillespie) is compatible.

104.194 There is no other evidence that any soldier fired a pistol in Glenfada Park North. In our view no soldier did fire a pistol in that area.

104.195 Daniel Gillespie does not appear to be shown in any of the relevant photographs or films carrying any of the Glenfada Park North casualties.1

1 Paragraphs 108.103–115

104.196 Most significantly, none of the other witnesses who have stated categorically that they helped to remove the casualties from Glenfada Park North have given evidence of a man being shot in the head as they did so. Most, or all, of the following people must either have missed this incident or have failed to recall it or to record it in any of their evidence if Anthony Martin is correct: Eibhlin Lafferty, Mary Lewis, Sean McDermott, Nell McCafferty, James McDaid, Patrick Kelly, John McLaughlin, Eddie Shiels, Greg Doherty, Thomas Heaney, Daniel McLaughlin, Susan Coyle, Leo Day and Don Campbell.1 Daniel Gillespie would also have moved into Abbey Park without being caught on the photographs of Trevor McBride or the cine film taken by Michael Rodgers. In our view, had Daniel Gillespie been injured at this stage one or more of these witnesses would have been bound to see him. We return to the removal of the casualties from Glenfada Park North later in this report.2

1 AM17.1; AL10.1; AM188.1; M54.1; AM166.1; AK21.1; AM500.1; AS16.1; AD66.1; AH56.1; AM325.1; AC86.1; AD13.1; AC8.1

2 Chapter 108

104.197 In these circumstances it seems to us that it would be unwise to rely on Anthony Martin’s accounts of how Daniel Gillespie came to be injured.

104.198 At the same time we cannot accept what Daniel Gillespie told us or what he told Praxis Films Ltd, since it is inconsistent with a substantial body of evidence1as to what happened when the soldiers came into Glenfada Park North and first opened fire, as well as with what he told Peter Pringle of the Sunday Times. As to the account in the Sunday Times, this could be closer to the truth, though it is not wholly consistent with what Michael Canavan told the Sunday Times journalists; and both these accounts refer to a soldier with a Sten gun or a Sterling gun, which again is unsupported by any convincing evidence.

1 Chapters 92, 97, 101 and 102

104.199 As will have been seen from the foregoing, on his own account to us, Daniel Gillespie was the first, or one of the first, to be shot, when he was in the centre of Glenfada Park North. According to Anthony Martin he was the last to be shot when close to the south-west corner. Daniel Gillespie’s account to Praxis was that he was hit by a bullet coming off a wall after he had gone from Abbey Park into Glenfada Park North with three stone-throwers. According to Michael Canavan, Daniel Gillespie told him that he had been going round a corner with three others when they met a soldier with a Sten gun who opened fire. He told the Sunday Times that he was close to the south-west alleyway when one of three soldiers shot him.

104.200 It is also unclear whether, assuming Army gunfire caused his injury, Daniel Gillespie was hit directly by a bullet, by a bullet that had ricocheted off a wall or by a splinter of brick from a bullet hitting a wall. The last of these possibilities is supported only by the oral evidence of Dr MacDermott given long after the event and is inconsistent with 1972 evidence.

104.201 The one thread that does seem to run through all accounts (save that of Michael Canavan who does not say anything about where Daniel Gillespie was when he was injured) is that Daniel Gillespie was injured in Glenfada Park North as the result of Army gunfire. The only circumstances that could fit with the other evidence of what happened there is that Daniel Gillespie did receive a slight head injury when the soldiers first opened fire and then made his own way from the scene, meeting Michael Canavan a little later. Whether this is what happened, though, remains very much in doubt, and can only be categorised as a possibility. It is also in doubt whether, if the injury was the result of a gunshot, Daniel Gillespie was hit directly by a bullet or by a ricochet of a bullet that had struck the wall, or indeed (though this is unsupported by any 1972 evidence) by a splinter of brick from a shot hitting a wall.

104.202 We should record at this point that we have considered the NICRA statement of James McDonald,1the evidence of Michael McGinley,2that of Bernard Gillespie3and the account John Carr gave to Paul Mahon.4In our view this material provided no assistance in seeking to determine how Daniel Gillespie came to be injured.

1 AM195.1

2 AM240.3; Day 91/70-72; Day 91/78-81

3 AG32.4; Day118/177-178

4 X4.6.5-6; X4.6.62

Jim Wray

Biographical details and prior movements

104.203 James Wray, commonly known as Jim, was 22 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He was engaged to be married, lived in the family home in Drumcliffe Avenue, Londonderry and worked as a refrigeration inspector.1On 30th January 1972 he went on the civil rights march with members of his family, and was present in William Street during the disturbances that followed the arrival of the crowd at Barriers 12 and 14.2Jim Wray is shown in photographs taken at this time, sitting cross-legged in William Street, and carrying the civil rights banner towards Barrier 12.

1 AW25.1; D0226; Day 49/25-27

2 Day 49/25-27; FS4.1-5

104.204 Jim Wray subsequently made his way to Glenfada Park North, where he was shot.

Where and when Jim Wray was shot

104.205 As we have already described, Jim Wray can be seen in three photographs close to the group carrying Michael Kelly across Glenfada Park North.

104.206 For reasons given earlier in this report,1we consider that Jim Wray probably stayed close to this group and did not return to the gable end on the eastern side of Glenfada Park North before making his way towards the alleyway into Abbey Park. As we also described earlier, Jim Wray was probably at the back of the group of people going towards and into the alleyway into Abbey Park, when he fell in the south-west corner of Glenfada Park North. The legs of his body can be seen in the photograph taken by Trevor McBride. Although this photograph is shown earlier in this report, it is convenient to show it again here.

1 Paragraph 103.3

104.207 We are sure that Jim Wray was in the course of leaving Glenfada Park North through the south-west alleyway into Abbey Park when he fell. He was at the back of a group of people leaving through this alleyway and probably fell immediately after Joe Friel and Michael Quinn were shot in front of him. Seconds before these events, soldiers had come into Glenfada Park North from the north-east entrance.

104.208 There is no doubt, as appears from the medical and scientific evidence we discuss below, that Jim Wray was shot twice in the right side of his back. As we have already mentioned, whether he fell because he was shot and whether he was shot after he had fallen and was lying on the ground were matters of great controversy.

Medical and scientific evidence

104.209 The autopsy on Jim Wray was conducted by Dr Derek JL Carson, then the Deputy State Pathologist for Northern Ireland,1 on 31st January at Altnagelvin Hospital.2 Three other doctors and two RUC photographers were also present.3 The notes, reports and photographs from this autopsy have been considered by Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan who were engaged by this Inquiry as independent experts on pathology and ballistics respectively. Dr Carson, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan all gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry; Dr Carson also appeared before the Widgery Inquiry.

1 WT8.64; D0532

2 D0247

3 D0247

104.210 The autopsy revealed two entrance wounds and two exit wounds.1 In their report, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan identified the respective wounds as “Wound 1 ” and “Wound 2 ” but emphasised that this was to assist description and did not imply the order in which the injuries were inflicted.2

1 D0248-0249

2 E2.33

104.211 Wound 1: The entry wound (a 0.7x0.5cm oval) was on the right side of the back, with its centre 4.5cm from the midline and 4cm below the scapula. The corresponding exit wound lay on the top back of the left shoulder, and was described in Dr Carson’s autopsy notes as being elliptical … 4 cm. x 2 cm. … its long axis in the sagittal [vertical] plane … bordered by an irregular zone of abrasion 2–3 mm. wide and it gaped widely exposing lacerated muscles in its depth .1 After inspecting photographs of this wound, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan gave their opinion that it was caused by a bullet that was not ‘nose on’ at the time of exit ”.2 The exit wound of Wound 1 was higher than the entry wound.

1 D0248

2 E2.0034

104.212 Wound 2: The entry wound (which was circular and 0.7cm in diameter) was on the right side of the back 7cm below and 2.5cm to the right of entry wound 1. The exit wound (which was roughly circular and 1.1cm in diameter) lay over the left side of the back 14cm to the left of the midline and 5.5cm below the angle of the scapula.1

1 D0248-249; E2.34-35

104.213 We have examined the morgue photographs, but at the request of the Wray family we do not reproduce them in this report. However, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan produced a diagram showing the position of the wounds.1 That diagram is reproduced below with the addition of the identification of Wounds 1 and 2.

1 E2.75

104.214 The internal injuries caused by the track of the two bullets were set out in Dr Shepherd’s and Mr O’Callaghan’s report. The bullets damaged some of Jim Wray’s ribs and thoracic vertebrae.1

1 E2.33; E2.34

104.215 In response to questions posed by the legal representatives of the Wray family, Dr Shepherd stated that it would be difficult to see how either of the bullets could have passed through Jim Wray’s ribs and vertebrae in the way described in his report without damaging the spinal canal and spinal cord either through contact or the transmission of shock waves. He thought it most likely that either of these situations would have led to temporary or permanent damage to the spinal cord ”, making it extremely likely that JAMES WRAY would have had, at least, decreased function in his legs after being struck by either of the bullets . If he had been standing when he received either of the wounds then Dr Shepherd would have expected him to fall to the ground within a very few seconds . He did not expect these injuries to have affected Jim Wray’s arms, but commented that it was not possible to state if and for how long JAMES WRAY might have been sufficiently conscious to be capable of voluntary movement .1

1 E18.1.4-E18.1.5

104.216 During his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Dr Shepherd was asked whether each of the wounds would necessarily have proved fatal, or whether Jim Wray’s life might have been saved by prompt medical treatment.1 He replied:2

“The wounds were such that with – if I take medicine at 2002, there is a possibility that with advanced trauma support, helicopter ambulances and the like, that [Jim Wray’s] life could have been saved. But in the circumstances then, with only the Knights of Malta and different approaches to casualties … both of these wounds would ultimately have been fatal … I believe that intervention in terms of 1972 standards of resuscitation at the scene of an accident [meant that] nothing could have been done; having received these injuries, either of these injuries, Mr Wray was going to die. ”

1 Day 229/69

2 Day 229/70

104.217 Jim Wray had a number of lacerations and abrasions to his face, back, right arm and legs.1 One of these was a cut above his left eye, which Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan considered was typical of a blunt impact by or against a flat surface rather than a tangential contact with a bullet, ie a bullet graze, though they could not entirely discount that explanation.2 Dr Carson also felt that this laceration did not appear to be a graze from a bullet, but again he could not exclude the possibility completely.3

1 D0249

2 E8.26

3 Day 207/8

104.218 As to the other lacerations and abrasions, apart from commenting that they were all typical of blunt trauma caused by contacts with the ground or other hard objects, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan could not say whether or not they were caused by Jim Wray falling. Because the lacerations and abrasions were on various parts of the body (both back and front), these experts commented that it was impossible for them all to have been caused by a single, simple contact.1

1 E8.27

104.219 Dr John Martin, then the Principal Scientific Officer at the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science (DIFS) in Northern Ireland, conducted tests on the hands and clothing of each of those killed1 in order to ascertain whether lead particles were present. In cases where they were, he interpreted the results and gave his opinion as to whether these particles were from firearm discharge residues, which would indicate that the casualty had either been handling a weapon himself or had been close to someone else who fired.2

1 D549

2 WT9.7-10; D0549-0550; D0550.1; D0551

104.220 Dr Martin’s 1972 notes recorded that lead particles were found on Jim Wray’s clothing and his left hand. Dr Martin identified more than 45 particles on Jim Wray’s jacket, some partially obscured by the presence of purple dye, and more than 60 lead particles on his trousers.1 Dr Martin’s conclusions were less clear concerning Jim Wray’s left hand, but it appears that he identified one lead particle and smears on swabs taken from the web of the hand and further smears on swabs taken from the palm and back that he also interpreted as positive results.2 He noted that there was not much particle definition (pb) [lead] on the web, and, in relation at least to the palm and possibly to the whole of the hand, that the smears maybe [sic] dye ”.3 In his report to the Widgery Inquiry, Dr Martin, who did not mention the lead particles found on Jim Wray’s trousers, concluded that The nature and distribution of lead particles on the hand swabs and clothing is similar to that produced by exposure to discharge gases from firearms ”.4 He confirmed in his oral evidence in 1972 that he considered this to be a positive finding ”.5

1 D0236-237; D0239-240; E1.0030; E1.0074

2 D0237; E1.0030; Day 226/102

3 D0237; Day 226/102

4 D0235

5 WT9.15

104.221 Dr John Lloyd was engaged by the present Inquiry as an expert scientific witness to consider, among other things, the significance that could be given to Dr Martin’s tests and findings relating to the presence of possible firearms discharge residue on the bodies and clothing of the deceased. He criticised Dr Martin’s general approach and methods and agreed that the overall distributions of the lead particles on all the deceased [did] not merely provide no support for the assumption that [the deceased] had been using firearms, but suggest that they had not ”.1 In Dr Lloyd’s view those found to have lead particles on their bodies or clothes could have picked these up from a variety of sources other than proximity to discharged firearms.2

1 Day 227/50

2 E1.51; E1.0001-0114

104.222 In the case of Jim Wray, Dr Lloyd made a number of specific criticisms of Dr Martin’s interpretation of the presence of particles. First, Dr Lloyd explained that if a casualty had been firing a weapon it would be expected, as a general rule, that the number of lead particles would decrease with distance from the point at which the weapon was fired. Thus it would be reasonable to expect the greatest density close to the hands, and less on the jacket and trousers. In Jim Wray’s case the opposite occurred.1

1 E1.32-33; E1.49; E1.74

104.223 Dr Lloyd also drew attention to the negative results returned for the presence of lead particles in the pockets of Jim Wray’s jacket and jeans. These were significant, he argued, as a gunman might be expected to keep his weapon in a pocket at some point.1

1 E1.35; E1.49; Day 227/28; D238; D241

104.224 Dr Lloyd told us that In view of the erratic nature of particle deposition when a firearm is discharged, the presence of a single particle in a particular area cannot be reasonably claimed to represent a preferential deposition in that area. 1 During his oral evidence he explained that: One could describe a deposition as preferential if a substantial number of particles had been deposited and that one could see a distribution of particles over the hand. But where one can see only a single particle, it can hardly be described as a distribution, it could have occurred anywhere on the hand.2 He agreed that a single particle found on the left hand might just as well have appeared on the right.3 Dr Lloyd also commented that the single particle found on Jim Wray’s hand could have derived from his clothing or the incident that contaminated his clothing.4

1 E1.38

2 Day 227/30-31

3 Day 227/30-31

4 E1.0049

104.225 Dr Lloyd considered the general evidential basis of smears of particles as dubious . In the case of Jim Wray he thought that Dr Martin was presumably… attributing the smears on his left palm to the purple dye that had been detected ”,1 rather than to possible handling of bullets or a rifle bolt. In his evidence to this Inquiry, Dr Martin accepted that it was possible that this interpretation was correct.2

1 E1.38

2 D607; Day 226/102-104

104.226 Dr Lloyd felt that there were far too many lead particles present on Jim Wray’s clothes to be consistent with his presence as a bystander close to someone who was firing a weapon. Dr Martin’s notes recorded the presence of more than a hundred lead particles on Jim Wray’s jacket and trousers. Dr Lloyd would have expected a much lower figure if Jim Wray had been standing close to someone who was firing, perhaps in the order of ten or 20. It would, he said, be most unusual to see the figure rising to 60.1

1 Day 227/62-64

104.227 Dr Lloyd concluded that the distribution of lead particles found on Jim Wray’s body and clothing was “not consistent with Wray’s use of a firearm or with his role as a bystander ”.1

1 E1.49; Day 227/49-50

104.228 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Dr Martin stated that After reviewing the file, I do not believe that the pattern of lead particle distribution is necessarily consistent with that produced by exposure to discharge gases from firearms .1

1 D608

104.229 Dr Martin appeared to accept many of the criticisms made by Dr Lloyd of his approach and conclusions in relation to Jim Wray, regarding the significance of the density of particles on Jim Wray’s trousers;1 the smears found on Jim Wray’s hand and clothing;2 the interpretation of a single particle;3 the likelihood that Jim Wray was neither handling a weapon nor close to someone who was; and that the lead particles on his body and clothing were more likely to have been the result of contamination from external sources when his body was subsequently moved.4

1 Day 226/82-83

2 Day 226/102-104

3 Day 226/86-88

4 Day 226/104-105

104.230 We have no doubt of the correctness of the views expressed by Dr Lloyd, which were largely accepted by Dr Martin, in contrast to the latter’s original reports and his evidence to the Widgery Inquiry. It follows that there is no acceptable scientific evidence to suggest that Jim Wray discharged a firearm on Bloody Sunday, or that he was near anyone else who fired.

104.231 Mr McSparran, counsel for the families, told the Widgery Inquiry that Jim Wray was right-handed.1 Dr Martin’s tests disclosed no evidence of lead particles on his right hand.2

1 WT9.33

2 D0235; D0237; E1.00074

104.232 Jim Wray’s outer garments were examined for the presence of explosive residues, but none was detected. This alone does not demonstrate that he had not had contact with nail bombs or other such devices. The amount of explosive residues left on a surface can decline very rapidly to the point where detection is not possible, and, as the explosive core of a hand-held bomb is usually wrapped, it is possible that only a small amount of residue would have been deposited in the first place.1 There is no record of any test for explosive residues on Jim Wray’s hands and it appears no swabs were received by DIFS for this purpose.2 However, there has never been any positive evidence, including in the work done by DIFS, to suggest that Jim Wray had been handling explosives.

1 D0230-0233

2 D0233

What Jim Wray was doing when he was shot

104.233 It has not been suggested by the legal teams representing the surviving soldiers who fired in Glenfada Park North that Jim Wray was armed or in possession of nail or petrol bombs when he was shot.

104.234 Corporal E and Private G were not represented at this Inquiry, because they died before it began. However, other soldiers’ representatives submitted that there was evidence to suggest that in fact James Wray was in possession of stones in Glenfada Park and part of a group preparing to attack soldiers when they entered ”.1

1 FR7.679

104.235 This submission was based on the evidence of PIRA 25. The evidence that this witness gave related to a period before soldiers had even come into the Bogside and opened fire; and he was not certain of his identification of Jim Wray as one of those he had seen picking up stones and bottles in Glenfada Park North.1 This evidence, as we have already indicated, provides no support for the suggestion that, at the time when people had been shot in Rossville Street and Michael Kelly was being carried across Glenfada Park North, Jim Wray (or indeed anyone else) was preparing to attack soldiers when they came into Glenfada Park North, as opposed to trying to take cover or escape.

1 Day 424/108-118; Day 424/131; Day 424/146

104.236 In his written statement to this Inquiry, John McGee recalled that he walked through the alleyway from Abbey Park into Glenfada Park North after seeing a man lying on the ground in Abbey Park and came across two men lying on the ground. He recognised one as Jim Wray and the other as William McKinney. I believe Jim Wray may have been alive when I saw him; he may have moved his headWhile I was there I picked up either from Jim Wray’s hands or from the ground very close beside him a small brown-handled steak knife and a couple of pebbles. I also picked up Jim Wray’s watch which had come off. 1 In his oral evidence, John McGee said that over the years he had lost the watch.2 He also said that the knife and the pebbles were very small and that he did not know why he had picked them up.3

1 AM223.2

2 Day 65/52-53

3 Day 65/62

104.237 We have doubts about the correctness of John McGee’s recollection as regards Jim Wray. In our view it is very unlikely that this casualty was still alive at the stage when John McGee says that he went to him. There is nothing in his account that suggests to us that Jim Wray was preparing to attack soldiers when he fell.

104.238 There is no other evidence from any civilian source that Jim Wray was either preparing to attack soldiers if and when they came into Glenfada Park North, nor any scientific or medical evidence to suggest that he was or had been armed with any lethal weapon. On the contrary, we consider that the civilian evidence establishes that he was, with others, simply attempting to get out of Glenfada Park North through the alleyway into Abbey Park when he fell.

Whether Jim Wray was shot while he was on the ground

104.239 There is evidence to suggest that Jim Wray was shot at least once as he lay on the ground. This consists of eyewitness accounts given both at the time and in later years, and the interpretations of the wounds to Jim Wray’s body and the bullet damage to his clothing made by some, but not all, of the expert witnesses. This issue was one of the most controversial matters discussed during the course of the Inquiry, and while the representatives of Jim Wray’s family have consistently alleged that he was, as they put it, executed by being shot at close range while on the ground,1 the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers deny that this was the case.2 No soldier has ever admitted firing at a casualty lying on the ground in Glenfada Park North or anywhere else. The relevant arguments, and the surrounding evidence and analysis, are discussed in the following paragraphs.

1 FS 4.179-180; FS 4.203-205

2 FS 7.1924-1925

104.240 There is no evidence that Jim Wray fell, returned to his feet and fell again, and we are satisfied that he did not do so. This being the case, there are three possible explanations as to Jim Wray’s anatomical position when he received the two bullet wounds found on his body:

1. Jim Wray was shot twice before he fell to the ground.

2. Jim Wray was shot once before he fell to the ground and once after he had fallen.

3. Jim Wray was shot twice after he had fallen to the ground.

104.241 In order to establish which of these possibilities is the most likely, we first consider the medical and scientific evidence available to this Inquiry, and the interpretations placed upon it by the expert witnesses. In addition to assessing the arguments that directly support each of the possibilities described above, we have to consider a number of subsidiary questions that are relevant to this matter. These include the order in which Wound 1 and Wound 2 occurred, the interval between the shots, the range at which the shots were fired, and whether the shots were fired from the same weapon.

104.242 None of the expert witnesses who gave evidence to this Inquiry was of the opinion that the question of whether Jim Wray was shot on the ground could be answered by looking at the scientific and medical evidence alone. However, this does not mean that either these witnesses or we considered all interpretations to be equally valid or equally likely. On some aspects the scientific and medical evidence was so inconclusive that it was not useful to our assessment of this matter. On other aspects this evidence and its analysis helped us in our efforts to establish the circumstances in which Jim Wray was killed.

Expert evidence concerning the wounds and the clothing

104.243 Turning first to what can be learned solely from the wounds on Jim Wray’s body, the most significant expert witnesses in this regard were Dr Carson, who performed the original autopsy, and Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan, who reviewed the reports, notes and photographs arising from the autopsy.

104.244 Dr Carson agreed with Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan that a number of issues concerning Jim Wray’s wounds could not be resolved incontrovertibly on the medical evidence alone. These included the order in which the two wounds were inflicted,1 the time that elapsed between the infliction of the two wounds, and whether or not the wounds were caused by bullets fired from the same weapon.3 Nonetheless, their interpretations of the wounds and subsequent explanations as to the most likely circumstances in which Jim Wray was shot differed significantly.

1 Day 229/69; Day 230/92; Day 206/40; Day 206/47-48

2 E2.38; Day 206/40; Day 206/47-48

3 E2.38; E8.17; Day 206/40; Day 206/47-48

104.245 In the original opinion that he gave on his autopsy findings, which was before the Widgery Inquiry, Dr Carson recorded that:1

“The close proximity and appearance of the two entrance wounds strongly suggested that they were caused by two bullets fired from the same weapon, whilst the divergence in the exit wounds indicates some movement of the body between the first and second wounds. On this interpretation the interval between the shots must have been very brief … It would thus seem likely that the lower of the two entrance wounds was caused first, by a bullet fired from the right of the deceased at near horizontal level, and that as he was falling to the left he was very quickly hit by another bullet, thus accounting for the divergent paths of the two missiles through the body. ”

1 D253

104.246 In other words, Dr Carson thought it likely that Jim Wray was on his feet when he was hit by a bullet that caused Wound 2. Very shortly afterwards and as he fell, he was hit again by a second bullet, which caused Wound 1. As is discussed below, Dr Carson told this Inquiry that he continued to think that this was the most likely explanation for Jim Wray’s injuries, although he accepted that other interpretations were possible.1

1 D537; Day 206/38-48

104.247 In their evidence to this Inquiry,1 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan agreed that it was more likely that both shots were fired by one person, and by extension in quick succession and from the same weapon, rather than by two people. They pointed to the similar shallow angles at which the bullets struck the deceased, the closeness of the shots and the generally similar wound tracks in support of their opinion, although they emphasised that other explanations were also possible.2

1 E8.0017; E2.0038

2 In a telephone conversation in March 2006, Dr Shepherd confirmed to the Inquiry that his view that the shots were likely to have been fired by one person meant that, in his opinion, they were fired in quick succession and from the same weapon.

104.248 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan stressed that caution had to be exercised when examining wound tracks within a body in order to calculate from where the corresponding shot or shots had been fired. Once a bullet had entered a body it could change direction, for example after striking bone, and damage to internal organs might extend far outside the actual track of the bullet. As a result, it was not possible to draw a line between the exit wound and the entrance wound and then extend it backwards in order to indicate the position of the firer. Indeed, often only the first few centimetres of the track will reflect the actual angle of impact .1

1 E2.0009

104.249 Bearing this in mind, they set out three broad propositions that would satisfy the angles of entry of these two bullets if, as we believe, the same individual fired both shots . They were:

“If James WRAY was vertical the shots must have been fired from below upwards, as if by someone lying on the ground.

If the firer was standing and the shots were fired horizontally James WRAY must have been bending forwards and the shots must have been fired from his right.

If James WRAY were lying on the ground the shots must have been fired from above and to his right as if by someone standing.

These are three possible variations of the relative positions of the firer and James WRAY, however, others will exist. ”

1 E2.0038

104.250 As we have seen, it was the view of Dr Carson that the second of these propositions was the most likely, namely that Jim Wray was shot once on his feet and then as he fell, with the first bullet coming from the right on a near horizontal level. In contrast, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan felt that the nature of the exit wound at Jim Wray’s shoulder (Exit Wound 1) was such that it suggested that he was in contact with a firm surface, such as the ground, when he received this injury. The argument on this point revolved on the issue of the cause and extent of the shoring of this exit wound.

Shoring

104.251 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan described shored wounds in their report to this Inquiry:1

“If the skin is ‘reinforced’ or ‘shored’ by a firm surface as the bullet exits, the everting skin impacts the surface against which it is shored. The everted margin is abraded by the surface leaving a zone of abrasion. The zone of abrasion surrounding shored exit wounds can vary significantly in size and density. In some instances it may mimic the appearance of the abrasion ring of an entrance wound while on other occasions they will be large and diffuse.

Shored exit wounds can occur with a variety of surfaces and circumstances. Individuals shot while sitting against a firm chair back or lying on the floor or against a wall may have shored exits. In some circumstances, particularly when the velocity of the bullet has been reduced by its passage through the body or for any other reason, even heavy clothing can present a sufficiently firm surface to produce a shored exit.

Generally speaking, if the bullet is travelling at high velocity and the surface against which the skin is shored is hard and unyielding, the zone of abrasion will be well defined. If, however, the velocity of the bullet has significantly diminished and the surface is less firm, the abrasion will be less well defined.”

1 E2.8-9; Day 206/40-44

104.252 In the opinion of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan the exit wound at Jim Wray’s shoulder (Exit Wound 1) had the appearance of a shored wound.1 Dr Carson agreed with this assessment, and with the description of the shoring quoted above.2 However, there was disagreement between Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan on the one hand, and Dr Carson on the other, as to the most likely cause of the shoring. We also considered a report by another pathologist, Dr Vincent Di Maio,3 who took a similar view to that of Dr Carson.

1 E2.0034

2 Day 206/42-45

3 Instructed by those representing the majority of represented soldiers.

104.253 Dr Carson told this Inquiry that he believed that the shoring of Exit Wound 1 could have been caused by the tightening of Jim Wray’s clothing as he fell to his left.1 However, this was not the preferred explanation of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan. The resulting debate was well summarised in the submissions of Counsel to the Inquiry, which with little amendment we set out below:2

44. Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan … felt that it was more likely that the shoring to Exit Wound 1 was caused by Jim Wray being in close proximity to a hard surface. In their report they concluded:

“The exit wound from wound 1 … is in our opinion a shored exit, which indicates that the left shoulder was in contact with a firm surface and/or his clothing was pulled tight at the time that the bullet exited from this site. We believe that the most likely explanation for this is that James WRAY lay on his left side on the ground when he suffered this wound.”3

45. In response to a question from the Treasury Solicitor, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan explained further the grounds on which this conclusion was reached:

“1. The exit wound in the left shoulder is a ‘shored’ exit.

2. The ‘standing’ or ‘bending’ scenarios are extremely unlikely to result in sufficient tightening of the clothing and cannot result in outside pressure against the shoulder.

3. The ‘lying’ scenario can result in either or both of these effects.

4. In order to ‘shore’ an exit of the left shoulder it is therefore ‘most likely’ that James Wray was lying on his left side.

While the possible orientations of James Wray are infinite the orientation that allows for the tracks of the injuries and the shoring of the wound are limited and, based on the information available to us, we believe that lying on his left side is the most likely orientation.”4

Dr Shepherd confirmed that that still represented his view when he gave oral evidence.5

46. During his oral evidence to this Inquiry Dr Shepherd stated of their conclusion:

“[I]t is very much a subjective opinion based upon the size of the person within the jacket and how the jacket is being worn, but it was our interpretation, really summed up in [the answer given to the Treasury Solicitor’s written question], it is most likely we felt there had to be this additional shoring rather than simple tightness of the jacket through the position of the body within it.”6

47. During his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Dr Shepherd compared Exit Wound 1 on Jim Wray’s shoulder with the injury to William Nash’s back. He concluded that both were shored exit wounds, but he believed that in Mr Nash’s case, the shoring effect was due solely to the tightening of his clothes caused by the orientation of his body, and not by Mr Nash’s back being in contact with a hard surface. Dr Shepherd pointed out that Mr Nash’s wound was more “succulent” than Jim Wray’s,7 and hence the result of less pressure being applied to the surface of the skin as the bullet exited the body. As Jim Wray’s wound was the result of a “quantitative – or a qualitative difference in the type of shoring”,8 he continued to believe that it had occurred in a different way – ie through contact with a hard surface as set out above.9 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan’s conclusions on Mr Nash can be found at E2.26-27,10 and Dr Shepherd’s oral evidence in relation to this case was given at Day 229/10-12;11 … Dr Shepherd explained the differences between these photographs [photographs of William Nash’s wound] and those of Jim Wray’s wound on Day 230.12

48. Dr Shepherd held to this opinion while being questioned by Peter Clarke QC [Counsel for the majority of the represented soldiers], stating that in his opinion (and that of Mr O’Callaghan) “the shoulder wound was such that it needed a little bit more than simple tightness of the clothing”.13 He added that this was a “subjective view”.14

49. Dr Shepherd gave further evidence on this subject the following day, when he stated that no “grading” of shored wounds had been developed in the literature on the subject.15

50. Dr Carson expressed his doubts about this theory, arguing that the position of Exit Wound 1 at the very top of Jim Wray’s back was such that it was unlikely that it could have been in contact with the ground at the time when the bullet exited.16 Dr Carson did accept that there was a greater possibility that the relevant area of the shoulder could have been pressed against a “vertical surface”, such as a kerb stone.17 The evidence does not suggest that Mr Wray’s body was pressed against a kerb stone.

51. Dr Shepherd answered this point by stating that in his opinion (and that of Mr O’Callaghan), the flesh around Exit Wound 1 need not have been pressed directly against a hard surface in order to obtain the shoring effect. A part of the body close to the exit wound could have been in contact with the ground and that could have caused the pulling of the clothing tightly across the site of the exit wound. That could produce the required pressure, which would be greater than that resulting from the tightening of clothes caused by Jim Wray falling from a standing position, and “any action ... when the clothing was fixed on the ground that would pull it tight, so any rotational action might tend to pull it tighter over the shoulder and increase the shoring ”.18

(a) Dr Shepherd agreed with Dr Carson that if the area of the wound had been in contact with the hard surface then it was more easily explained by the suggestion that this was a vertical surface, such as a kerb stone.19 However, as is considered in the preceding paragraph, Dr Shepherd did not see this as necessary in order to explain the shoring of the wound.

(b) During his examination by Richard Harvey [Counsel for the Wray family], Dr Shepherd accepted that it was possible that the shoring of the wound could have been caused by Jim Wray lying prone against the pavement or courtyard while “struggling to get the left arm out from under himself and push himself up that way”.20

52. Peter Clarke QC raised more than once the very limited experience that Dr Shepherd had with shored wounds caused by high velocity bullets.21 Dr Shepherd stated that such wounds were “something of a rarity” in the United Kingdom,22 and he had not seen such a wound in his personal examinations.23 However, he had seen them demonstrated by other pathologists,24 and low velocity shored wounds were “much more common”.25 In general, he commented that:

“There is no huge body of evidence. I return to the word ‘subjective ’. That is our opinion, that it is most likely that the injury to Mr Wray is caused in that way, but we have tried to be extremely careful, in this interpretation, not to be dogmatic because of the significance that we realise is attached to this particular exit wound.”26

(a) Peter Clarke also questioned Mr O’Callaghan along similar lines. Mr O’Callaghan stated that he had seen “really very few” shored high velocity wounds, but he emphasised that the wound itself was of more concern to a pathologist than an expert on ballistics. He accepted that Jim Wray’s Exit Wound 1 could have been caused by clothing alone, but he did not alter the opinion that he and Dr Shepherd gave in their report, namely that it was more likely that it was caused by Jim Wray’s proximity to a hard surface.27

3.5 Dr. Vincent Di Maio’s report to this Inquiry

78. Dr Vincent Di Maio provided a report to this Inquiry in which he reviewed Dr Shepherd’s evidence to this Inquiry in addition to the original autopsy notes relating to Jim Wray’s case.

79. Dr Di Maio did not disagree with the descriptions of the wounds provided by Dr Shepherd, and he accepted that Jim Wray could have received both wounds while on his feet bending over, while pitching forward, or while lying on the ground.28

80. In relation to Wound 1, Dr Di Maio accepted that the wound was “shored” but characterised the shoring as “minimal”. He noted that this was a subjective term as he was not aware of any grading system for the degree of shored wounds.29

81. Dr Di Maio noted that in cases where a shored exit wound was associated with a hard surface, “the exiting bullet may itself fragment, or fragment the impacted surface, creating secondary fragment wounds around the exit”. In Jim Wray’s case, there were no such secondary fragment wounds around Exit Wound 1.30

82. After raising these two points, Dr Di Maio commented that:

“Two suggestions were made to explain the shoring. One was contact with a firm surface such as a curb. In my opinion, this is extremely unlikely due to the minimal degree of shoring in this case and absence of secondary fragment wounds. The second possibility, and the one I believe to be correct, is that the clothing was ‘pulled tight’ at the time the bullet exited the shoulder, shoring up the skin.

The suggestion is made in the testimony that the clothing was ‘pulled tight ’ due to Mr. Wray lying on the ground. In actuality, this position of Mr. Wray is not necessary to explain the occurrence of the shoring. Mr. Wray was dressed in multiple (five) layers of clothing … I have seen a number of cases of shoring associated only with multiple layers of clothing. In such cases the clothing is often pulled tight by the act of bending. The clothing in such cases reinforces the skin sufficiently so as to produce a shored exit. Therefore there is no necessity for Mr. Wray to have been lying on the ground when he incurred the shored exit. The act of bending over and running away or of pitching forward would be sufficient to tighten the clothing such as to produce a shored exit. In other words, there is no way one can say with certainty whether at the time he received the wound, Mr. Wray was bent over, pitching forward or already on the ground.”31

83. It might be felt that Dr Di Maio’s point relating to the secondary fragment wounds was answered by the evidence of Dr Shepherd, Mr O’Callaghan and Dr Lloyd to this Inquiry:

(a) It was not suggested that Jim Wray’s shoulder was pressed tight against a firm surface; but, instead, that he would have been lying on the ground but with his shoulder raised. It was therefore possible that a bullet exiting his shoulder could have struck the ground a small but significant distance from Jim Wray’s body.

(b) The fragmentation of any bullet depended on a number of factors, including the speed at which it left the body, the angle at which it hit any surface and the density of that surface. In the absence of evidence regarding all of these factors, it is not possible to predict with certainty whether or not any given bullet would fragment significantly.

84. While Dr Di Maio stated that secondary fragment wounds “may” result from the proximity of the casualty to a hard surface, his choice of auxiliary verb tacitly acknowledges that this need not be the case. The possible circumstances relating to Jim Wray’s death might be a prime example of an occasion when the absence of such wounds does not indicate that the casualty was upright when the bullet exited the body.

85. Dr Di Maio’s other argument – that the “minimal” shoring could have been caused by the tightening of the clothing without contact with the ground – is avowedly based on a subjective analysis of the extent of the shoring around the wound.

86. The conclusion of Dr Di Maio’s report was that “there is no way one can say with certainty whether at the time he received the wound, Mr. Wray was bent over, pitching forward or already on the ground”.32

87. Despite that, it is reasonable to summarise Dr Di Maio’s evidence as an assessment that Jim Wray was probably not lying on the ground when he received Wound 1. While he accepted that the other interpretation was possible, he did not feel that it was the most likely explanation. He based this opinion on a subjective view of a “minimal” level of shoring, which could have been caused by the tightening of Jim Wray’s clothes alone, and the absence of secondary fragment wounds. His report did not indicate the weight that he attached to his two points.

88. Dr Shepherd’s response to Dr Di Maio’s report emphasised that he and Mr O’Callaghan had made a subjective judgement on Jim Wray’s likely position when he received Wound 1. As was clear from his earlier evidence, he did not rule out other possibilities, including the two broad scenarios suggested by Dr Di Maio. In conclusion he argued that it was not possible to take the matter further through the pathology alone. 33

1 Day 206/45-46

2 CS6.352-356; CS6.367-370

3 E2.39

4 E8.16

5 Day 229/028

6 Day 229/30-31

7 Day 230/102-103

8 Day 229/30

9 Day 229/27-30

10 E2.26-27

11 Day 229/10-12

12 Day 230/102-103

13 Day 229/88

14 Day 229/88; Day 230/80-81; Day 229/88-89

15 Day 230/100-101

16 Day 206/46-47

17 Day 206/47

18 Day 229/31-32

19 Day 229/31

20 Day 229/69

21 Day 229/71; Day 229/81-82; Day 230/103-104

22 Day 230/102

23 Day 230/104

24 Day 230/104

25 Day 230/102

26 Day 230/104

27 Day 230/68-73

28 E33.2-E33.3

29 E33.2-E33.3

30 E33.2

31 E33.2-E33.3

32 E33.3

33 E33.4

104.254 On balance we prefer the views on the shoring of Exit Wound 1 expressed by Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan, though we should emphasise that those views do not in themselves establish that Jim Wray must have been shot at least once while he was on the ground.

104.255 We were particularly impressed by Dr Shepherd’s comparison with the wound sustained by William Nash; and consider that Dr Di Maio’s view (and possibly that of Dr Carson) was based in part on the absence of evidence of fragmentation of the bullet. For reasons given below, we do not accept that absence of evidence of fragmentation indicates that Jim Wray was unlikely to have been shot on the ground.

Fragmentation

104.256 Dr Carson raised a second objection to the possibility that Jim Wray was shot as he lay on the ground. He suggested that if this had occurred, the bullet would have fragmented on hitting the hard surface of the kerb with the result that the exit wound and adjacent clothing would have been likely to be contaminated with lead particles from the disintegrating bullet and possibly also with debris from the kerb.1He stated that he saw no evidence of fragmentation damage to the wound,2and there was nothing in Dr Martin’s notes of his examination for lead particles to indicate the presence of any particles attributable to a fragmenting bullet.3

1 Day 207/30-35

2 Day 207/30

3 D240-241; Day 227/72-73

104.257 Dr Carson’s point was based on the belief that Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan were suggesting that Jim Wray was shot while lying with his shoulder pressed to a kerb, and hence that this kerb would inevitably have been struck by the bullet as it left Jim Wray’s body. Dr Lloyd told this Inquiry that had this been the situation he would have expected something approaching gross contamination around the exit hole in the jacket.1However, as is discussed above, Dr Shepherd’s and Mr O’Callaghan’s view was that the shoring of the shoulder wound need not have been caused by direct contact between the area of the exit wound and the kerb. On their hypothesis, it was possible for the wound to have been shored in the way that it was despite the presence of a gap between the point at which the bullet left Jim Wray’s shoulder and the kerb or pavement below.2

1 Day 227/69-73

2 Day 230/71-72; Day 229/30-32

104.258 In these circumstances, Mr O’Callaghan suggested two reasons as to why the jacket would not be contaminated by a fragmenting bullet. First, the bullet might have been slowed in its path through Jim Wray’s body and there was no certainty that it would have fragmented.1Second, even if the bullet had fragmented, the particles would have retained velocity and energy after the bullet struck a hard surface and hence they could have dispersed from the area without contaminating Jim Wray’s jacket and wound. Because of these factors, Mr O’Callaghan considered the possibility that Jim Wray’s clothing would have contained fragments of the bullet that struck him as unlikely and a difficult one to envisage ”, although he could not rule it out.2

1 Day 230/27-28

2 Day 230/28-29

104.259 For the reasons given by Mr O’Callaghan we are not persuaded that there would have been evidence of bullet fragmentation on Jim Wray’s clothing had he been shot while on the ground; nor (as Dr Di Maio suggested) secondary fragmentation wounds. It follows that in our view the absence of signs of fragmentation in relation to Exit Wound 1 does not indicate that this wound was unlikely to have been sustained while Jim Wray was lying on the ground.

Bullet damage to the clothing

104.260 Jim Wray’s jacket was sent to DIFS on 2nd February 1972 for examination by Dr Martin and others.1 It was subsequently returned to the Wray family, who preserved it and made it available to this Inquiry. Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan were asked to look at the jacket as well as the DIFS notes in the course of their work. They concluded that there appeared to be three bullet entry holes in the back of the jacket. These are marked EH1, EH2 and EH3 on the photograph below.

1 D235

104.261 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan considered that in the case of EH3, the bullet entered from the lining side of the jacket.1

1 E2.37; Day 230/32

104.262 Dr Martin’s notes record the presence of EH1 and EH2.1 A reference to EH3 appears to have been crossed out on his drawing of the jacket,2 and no further mention of it was made in his written notes or report.3

1 D238; D239; D235

2 D239

3 E2.36; D226-246

104.263 Dr Martin tested all three holes for the presence of lead particles, but only EH1 returned a positive result. Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan commented that bullet wipe , the deposit left by the passage of the bullet through clothing, was still visible at the lower right margin of this hole.1

1 E2.36-37; F4.19; Day 230/13-14

104.264 Dr Lloyd stated to this Inquiry that Dr Martin’s notes indicated that he tested only the exterior surface of the jacket for lead.1 Mr O’Callaghan attempted to conduct a further test on the lining of EH3, but due to the deterioration of the jacket over the years this was not possible. However, he did confirm that there was no visible bullet wipe around EH3.2

1 D238-D244; Day 227/55-56

2 Day 230/31-32

104.265 There was further damage to the jacket at the seam on the left shoulder and also to the left side of the jacket including the side pocket. In both cases the lining of the jacket was far less extensively affected than the outer cloth, and there were no visible deposits from muzzle discharges.1 The relevant areas are marked respectively XH1 and XH2 on the following photographs.

1 E2.37; F4.1; F4.3; F4.21-27

104.266 Dr Martin concluded that the damage was consistent with bullet exit.1 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan agreed that this was the most likely cause, though they accepted that there was a possibility that the damage marked XH2 might have been caused by a third bullet.2

1 D235

2 E8.26

104.267 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan expressed their conclusions on the damage to Jim Wray’s jacket, which we accept, as follows:1

“There is little doubt that the top hole in the back of the jacket [EH1] is associated with the damage on the left shoulder [XH1] and that the middle hole [EH2] is associated with the damage to the left side [XH2]. The lowest hole [EH3] is more difficult to account for. It may be possible that a bullet passed through the jacket causing the lowest of the three holes but without inflicting an injury to the body. However, photographs taken of the deceased wearing the jacket on Bloody Sunday show that this hole would have been situated high on his right buttock. It is difficult to envisage how a bullet could have passed through the jacket at this site without causing an injury even if the deceased had been running and the jacket moving away from his body when shot.

We have concluded that the most likely explanation for the damage is that the bottom of both the left and right sides of the jacket were folded or crumpled up when the lower of two shots struck. This exposed the lining at the bottom of the right side of the jacket through which the bullet entered, causing holes in the underlying layers of outer cloth and lining beneath. As the bullet exited through the left side of the jacket it left relatively little damage to the lining, but cut through the folded outer cloth leaving a line of ragged damage approximately centered on the top of the pocket. ”

1 E2.37

104.268 In other words, according to these experts the most likely explanation for the damage to the jacket is that two bullets hit Jim Wray. One entered the jacket at EH1 and exited around the shoulder at XH1. The other initially passed through the exposed lining of the jacket at EH3 while it was folded upwards. It then went through the outside of the jacket at EH2, before exiting on the left side where it caused the damage at XH2. The implication of this analysis is that the bullet that caused EH1 and XH1 also caused Wound 1, while a second bullet resulted in EH2, EH 3, XH2 and Wound 2.

104.269 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan repeatedly stressed that the medical and scientific evidence did not allow them to establish a unique and exact theory regarding the orientation of Jim Wray’s body at the time when he was shot.1 However, they did provide two possible examples of how the jacket came to be crumpled in order to allow for the damage at EH2, EH3 and XH2.

1 E2.39; Day 230/33-34; Day 230/62-63; Day 230/86-90

104.270 Jim Wray could have been standing upright, but leaning forward from the waist, with the jacket folded up on his back and pushed forward at the sides, as shown in the following photograph.

104.271 Alternatively, Jim Wray could have been lying on his front, with the jacket folded on top of his back and pushed forward at the sides, as shown in the photograph below.1 Mr O’Callaghan confirmed in his oral evidence that this photograph showed a person lying full length on the ground and slightly pushing himself up with his arms and that this was one particular position in which the damage can be reconciled with the position of the deceased ”.2

1 Day 230/62-63

2 Day 230/63

104.272 Mr O’Callaghan commented that these were just two of “a whole range of possibilities that could explain how the jacket came to be “ruched up at the relevant time.1 He also explained that the position of the model, Jim Wray’s nephew, James,2 in the photograph directly above was intended to give the general relationship of [Jim Wray to] the jacket and was not, by any means, necessarily the position in which Jim Wray was, either when shot or indeed at any time”. 3 Dr Shepherd reiterated this point when he was recalled.4

1 Day 230/33-34; Day 230/89

2 FS4.194

3 Day 230/88

4 Day 230/94-96

104.273 With these caveats in place, Mr O’Callaghan went on to say that:1

“I think, as we said, there are variations which could account for the crumpling but, taking everything as a whole, this seems to be the more likely, taking, you know, the pathological aspects of it, together with the jacket, but it does not preclude the possibility that the jacket arrived in that position with the deceased in a different position. ”

1 Day 230/89

104.274 The Chairman asked Mr O’Callaghan, In your answer, you said, ‘this seems to me the more likely ’; what did you mean by ‘this ’?”. Mr O’Callaghan replied:1

“That the deceased is actually on the ground when the – with the jacket crumpled rather than running. I suppose it is more common sense than anything to do with firearms expertise that the jacket, in this position, for both sides of the jacket to be up, the victim on the ground, the deceased on the ground seems more likely to me, but it is not an immutable opinion, by any means. ”

1 Day 230/90

104.275 It is important to note that Mr O’Callaghan’s opinion in this regard relates solely to the damage to the jacket at EH2, EH3 and XH2 and therefore only to Wound 2, the lower of the two injuries to Jim Wray’s body. In itself, this opinion does not relate in any way to Wound 1 (which resulted in the shored exit wound at Jim Wray’s shoulder), or the corresponding damage to the jacket at EH1 and XH1.

104.276 As Mr O’Callaghan himself indicated, his view on this matter was based more on common sense than his expertise. While respecting this view, we remain unpersuaded that it amounts on its own to a firm basis for concluding that Wound 2 was sustained when Jim Wray was on the ground.

The range of the shots

104.277 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Mr O’Callaghan explained that a visible deposit of lead and burned propellant might be left on the outer surface of a target shot at a range of less than 1m.1 In the case of Jim Wray, there is nothing in Dr Martin’s 1972 notes to indicate the presence of such a deposit, and his diagrams of the jacket are accompanied by the comment no sign of close range ”.2 Mr O’Callaghan told this Inquiry that there was nothing in the material that he had examined to contradict this opinion, and, on the basis that Dr Martin had made a thorough examination and noted the presence of any relevant deposits, he concluded that there was no evidence that Jim Wray was shot from a distance of less than 1m.3 We accept Mr O’Callaghan’s evidence on this point.

1 E2.0012; Day 229/15-16

2 D239; F23.6

3 Day 230/34-36

104.278 In his 1972 notes Dr Martin also recorded that Jim Wray had been shot from a distance of more than 30 feet.1 This finding appears to be based on the absence of contamination by muzzle discharge residues, which, unlike discharge residues from the breech of a weapon, are indicative of firing from a relatively close range. Dr Martin told this Inquiry that through the results of his tests in 1972 he was able to ascertain the difference between discharge from the muzzle and that from the breech in shots fired at a range of between zero and 12 feet, and that there was only a negligible possibility of contamination from muzzle discharge when the range was greater than 30 feet. However, he also stated that at a range of between 12 and 30 feet it was possible to mistake muzzle discharge for that emanating from the breech.2 Hence, on his own logic, it would be possible for an observer looking at a target struck from a range of between 12 and 30 feet to misidentify muzzle discharge as breech discharge, and then to conclude that as no muzzle discharge was present then the shot must have been fired from a distance of more than 30 feet. Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan noted that Dr Martin had inexplicably failed to report that residues apparently emanating from a breech could equally have come from a muzzle fired 12–30 feet away. They also recorded that Dr Martin’s descriptions of the particles did not clearly indicate the size of the particles, and that it was not clear how Dr Martin had used these descriptions to interpret the nature of the residues.3 They concluded that in the cases of all but one of the known victims of Bloody Sunday, the only potentially reliable finding that could be drawn was that the apparent absence of a visible deposit from muzzle discharge on the deceased’s clothing or skin indicated that the shots were fired from a distance of probably no less than a metre.4 Mr O’Callaghan confirmed in his evidence to this Inquiry that this conclusion applied in the case of Jim Wray,5 and we accept his evidence on this point.

1 F23.6; D239

2 D604; Day 226/60-67

3 E2.0012-0013

4 E2.0013. The exception was Gerard McKinney, whose clothes were washed at the hospital prior to examination.

5 Day 230/35-36

104.279 We return below to the scientific and medical evidence on the question of whether Jim Wray was shot at very close range, albeit one of greater than a metre.

Summary of the medical and scientific evidence on whether Jim Wray was shot on the ground

104.280 The expert witnesses who gave evidence to this Inquiry agreed that there was no way of establishing from the medical and scientific evidence alone Jim Wray’s precise anatomical position when he was shot, which of the shots struck him first, the time that elapsed between the two shots, and whether or not Jim Wray was standing, falling or lying on the ground when either wound was inflicted. However, the following paragraphs set out the explanations that each of the relevant experts considered to be the most likely.

104.281 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan thought that the following scenario was the most persuasive:

a) that the two bullets that struck Jim Wray were fired from the same weapon, from the same position and in quick succession;

b) that Wound 1, because of the nature of the shoring of the exit wound, was caused when Jim Wray was on his left-hand side on the ground;

c) that Wound 2, because of the bullet damage to the jacket, was also caused when Jim Wray was on the ground; and

d) that there was insufficient evidence to indicate which of Wounds 1 and 2 was the first to be sustained.

104.282 In contrast, Dr Carson, supported in part by Dr Di Maio, considered the most likely explanation for Jim Wray’s wounds to be as follows:

a) that Jim Wray was shot by two bullets fired from the same weapon, from the same position and in quick succession;

b) that the shoring to the exit wound at Jim Wray’s left shoulder was more likely to be caused by a tightening of the clothes as Jim Wray fell, rather than by Jim Wray being in contact with the ground. Dr Di Maio agreed with Dr Carson on this point; and

c) that, because of the proximity and similar appearance of the entrance wounds and the divergent tracks and exit wounds, and the probable cause of the shoring of the shoulder wound, the lower wound, Wound 2, was inflicted first when Jim Wray was upright and the upper wound, Wound 1, was caused by a bullet striking Jim Wray as he fell to his left.

Professor Keith Simpson

104.283 Professor Keith Simpson, in 1972 Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of London and a Home Office pathologist, reviewed the medical evidence available to the Widgery Inquiry and gave evidence on it to that Inquiry. In relation to Jim Wray, Professor Simpson stated that it was not possible to comment on whether the two bullet wounds to his body were caused by the same weapon in the absence of the bullets themselves.1However, his view was that the entry wounds were consistent with those caused by a round from a 7.62mm NATO rifle.2Professor Simpson thought that the upper of the entry wounds to Jim Wray’s body (Wound 1) might have been caused by a bullet that had been destabilised in flight, but he explained that the deflection need only have been slight and could have been caused by Jim Wray’s own clothing.3He described the direction of fire as being from right to left.4

1 WT9.39; D0630

2 WT9.39

3 WT9.39; D0627

4 WT9.40

104.284 On the question of whether Jim Wray was shot while standing or while on the ground, Professor Simpson stated that he could not tell whether he was erect, lying down, raising himself from a prone position, or falling from a raised position.1Professor Simpson also commented that he could not assist as to whether it was more likely that Jim Wray was standing when the bullet entered his body.2

1 WT9.40; WT9.51

2 WT9.43

104.285 When asked about one of the bullet tracks (Wound 2), Professor Simpson agreed it went through from right to left with an inclination upwards at about 15 degrees to the horizontal plane ”.1

1 WT9.43

104.286 We return to Professor Simpson’s evidence below, when we consider the question of whether the position of Jim Wray’s body on the ground assists in determining whether he was shot after he had fallen.

104.287 Professor Simpson was not asked about, nor did he comment upon, the points raised by the witnesses to this Inquiry concerning the shoring of Jim Wray’s shoulder wound, the significance of possible bullet fragmentation, the range at which Jim Wray was shot and the bullet damage to his jacket. However, his testimony reinforces our view that the scientific and medical evidence alone does not enable us to form a conclusion on the matter under consideration. As Dr Shepherd commented when discussing the question of shoring, any final conclusions concerning the position of James Wray when he received this injury will now depend on an assessment of any eye witness accounts that are available to the Inquiry .1

1 E33.4

104.288 We accordingly turn to consider the civilian evidence on this question.

The civilian evidence

104.289 We turn first to look at the evidence of the eight civilians who gave accounts in 1972 that could be said to show that Jim Wray was shot as he lay on the ground. They are: Malachy Coyle, John Porter, Michael Wilson, Susan and Betty Coyle, Bridget and William O’Reilly, and Gerald Campbell. We then consider later evidence given by these witnesses before assessing what reliance we can place on their accounts.

Malachy Coyle

104.290 Malachy Coyle gave a NICRA statement that was dated 1st February 1972. In this he was described as a 14-year-old schoolboy.1As we have noted above, shortly before the soldiers opened fire in Glenfada Park North he had been pulled to cover in a yard in Glenfada Park North. In his NICRA account, Malachy Coyle recorded:2

“We hid behind a dustbin and looked out to see if we could see the army. I could see three unarmed men lying on the ground in Glenfada Park. One of the men had his left eyebrow shot away. He was lying face down on the ground.

I made a move towards this man but the man in the yard with me pulled me back. We then tried to get into this house, but the man said we should not as the door of the back yard was open and the army would be able to see us. We looked towards the wounded men on the ground and the man with the eye wound looked up at us and exchanged a few words with the man in the yard with me. I heard another shot coming from the direction of the soldiers and I then knew that the man had been shot again in the back of the left-hand shoulder. He gave a groan and I could then see that the man was dead. ”

1 AC97.20. Malachy Coyle told us when he gave evidence to this Inquiry that he was in fact 16 at the time of Bloody Sunday (AC97.1).

2 AC97.20

John Porter

104.291 John Porter, a Quartermaster Sergeant in the Irish Army who was 33 at the time of Bloody Sunday,1gave a long Keville interview.2We have already considered some of the evidence of this witness in our examination of Sector 1. In his Keville interview he gave an account of the rioting in William Street, firing in the Rossville Street area, events, including a shot, in the Columbcille Court area and people running from Glenfada Park North. He then described going into 8 Abbey Park:3

“I looked out the window and I saw a man running towards the front of Glenfada Park running towards er – from the Rossville Street area. I could just seen the corner of the flats from the house I was in, saw the man running and the next thing I saw was er –your man falling. In my opinion this man was shot from the walls behind the flats to the right of – right of Butcher Gate. ”

1 AP11.1; WT8.44

2 AP11.26-28

3 AP11.26

104.292 John Porter continued by saying that two paratroopers appeared. I saw the front paratrooper come up and aim and fire two shots … These shots would be directed towards the corner of Rossville Street flats and the Free Derry Corner. Er – the next thing I saw was a second paratrooper and another paratrooper appeared and he fired one shot. Er – these two paratroopers went to advance forward… 1 These paratroopers then arrested a group of people standing behind the flats including a woman in a green coat who protested and was kicked. He then said that he ran out of the door towards a man seemingly shot in the arm who had fallen and cut his right eye or his left eyebrow on the edge of the path, but as he was about half way between the man and the flats there was a volley of shots rang out. I knew by the noise of the bullets that the bullets – the bullets had hit the wall just between me and the man and I assumed that the idea was to keep people from getting out on to the Court to lift the wounded men. Er – I learned later that there were two other men round the corner. One of them was dead and the second man was wounded. 2

1 AP11.26

2 AP11.26

104.293 John Porter then stated that he ran back but this time went into 7 Abbey Park. He then described incidents which (as appears later in this report1) took place in Abbey Park, after which he said:2

“I saw the man lying on the ground that I had tried to rescue earlier on, rise up again with his head and all off the ground and I saw the clothes on his back jump up and I knew that he had been shot at close range by a rifle er – but I saw the smoke at the back of his clothes. The next thing a Paratrooper came out behind the man about four yards across the way and then I went out and helped men to carry this man into the house and er – one of the shots was in his arm where I later – earlier said it was and the cut was above his eye and one of the bullets was in his lower right side and this bullet’s sitting probably in his body but er – the other shots that they fired at close range entered his left side and came out of his right shoulder blade … There was no doubt in my mind that the Paratrooper shot a wounded man on the ground. ”

1 Chapters 106, 107 and 108 2AP11.27-28

104.294 It appears that this Keville interview was edited and transcribed by NICRA and dated 31st January 1972,1but that transcription contains some material inaccuracies, to which we refer below. The quotations that we have set out above come from our own transcription of the interview, with the inaccuracies corrected.

1 AP11.18

104.295 John Porter’s signed NICRA statement was dated 1st February 1972.1Having given his recollection of earlier events, John Porter stated that he moved from Columbcille Court in the direction of Glenfada Park North:2

“… I only got as far as 83Glenfada Park when I heard people shouting and squealing ‘there’s the army. There’s the Saracens.’ I stopped and looked to my left and saw a group of people running through an arch in front of me. A young man in the group wearing a blue suit had an injury and lacerations to the side of his head. I then turned to run and a woman shouted ‘Mister, quick come in here.’ I ran in the door and she said ‘Close the door.’ I kept the door slightly open and looked through the slip-way between the houses in front of me. I saw a young man falling and as he fell he hit his head on the sidewalk. I then heard a volley of shots. I closed the door and went to the window. I told the people in the house that a man was injured. I went back to the door and opened it. I looked towards the injured man. His head was raised up looking towards me and I saw a cut above his left eye. He tried to raise himself up but failed

and then I saw blood on his wrist. I said to the people in the house, ‘My God, there’s a man who has been shot.’ I ran out the door towards the man and saw a group of men standing in the same area. As I was running I saw one of the men make an effort to go towards the injured man. I then heard three bullets hitting the wall between myself and the injured man. The last was a ricoche. I turned immediately and the men at the corner scattered. I ran back to No. 7 and closed the door. I then went to the window and looked out to my left and saw an elderly man lying face up on the ground. He was not moving. I returned to the door and heard someone shout ‘Get a first aid man, this man has had a heart attack or something.’ I then saw a young man run from the right towards the man waving a white handkerchief. He stopped between the corner and the man and shouted ‘Don’t shoot, don’t shoot!’ The next I saw he was knocked off his feet onto the ground. I then saw a girl run from the same place. She was wearing a white coat with a red cross on it. When she arrived at the corner she stumbled and fell. A crowd of approx. 15 people came forward with their hands raised. Some were waving white handkerchiefs. When the group arrived at the corner a number of shots rang out and some squatted down and some lay down. They immediately scattered again. Then I looked back towards the first man who had fallen. I saw a paratrooper appear followed by a second. They took up aimed positions. The first fired two shots and the second one shot. These shots were aimed and elevated. They then moved forward a few yards and noticed a group of people sheparding together. The paratroopers then pointed their rifles in their direction and signaled for the people to move off. I then saw a paratrooper kick one of the people. When the group moved off a woman wearing a green coat remained. She seemed to protest and was perturbed. She moved and the paratrooper stepped to her right rear. I then saw the paratrooper kick the woman. Two more paras arrived followed by a third. This para. turned and followed the group. I then saw the first para. of the second group fire four shots from the hip position and faned the rifle as he did so. The second para, almost at the same time fired two shots from chest high. They then moved out of my range of view. I again told the people of the house about the man I had seen fall earlier, and told them he was definitely shot. They wanted me to keep away from the window so I moved to an angled position so as to still observe the man lying on the ground. I saw a paratrooper move from the right side of the man to his left. He moved back to the right and crossed again. He was small, dark complexion and could have been wearing a moustache. That was the last I saw of this para.

I still did not go outside because I knew the second para was still there. I moved to the centre of the window and still observed the man I had tried to rescue. I then saw him lift his head off the ground and I said ‘That man’s not dead yet. He’s still alive.’ I then saw the back of the man’s coat jump up twice about 4 or 5 inches in the air and I said, ‘Good God, that man’s must been shot twice in the back at close range.’ I saw some smoke rise from where he’d been shot. A few seconds afterwards I saw the second para. move out to clear view. Thats the last I saw of that para. He was of light complexion and appeared to have blond type hair.

We waited a few minutes and the area became completely silent. Myself and a few men rushed out of the houses towards this man. We lifted him and carried him back towards the house. When we carried the first man into the house before, we lay him face down and while some tended to him I said, ‘What about an Act of Contrition.’ We lifted his shirt up and he had a bullet wound on his right lower back and also one on his left lower back. As we pulled his shirt further up I noticed the long triangular shape laceration on his left shoulder. He was still wearing all of his clothes but they were pulled up so we could see his back. Some blood was coming from the wound on his left lower back. I put my handkerchief over the wound to stop the blood flow and a man began to wrap a large wide bandage round his body. I then said that the man would have a wound in his lower right/left arm and I stood up and left the house.

I then got worried and moved off towards Eglington Terrace. On the way a shot rang out and I looked round towards the area of Free Derry Corner and the City Walls and as I did so more shots rang out from the Walls. I then turned towards the houses again and when I arrived I found out that there were five men in the houses who had been shot. I went into No. 7 where a man was being tended by a doctor. Knights of Malta First Aid men were also present. ”

1 AP11.1-3

2 AP11.1-3

3 Examination of the original handwritten version of the statement would suggest that the “8 ” in the typed version was a typographical error; the number does not appear in the handwritten version. However, John Porter also gave an interview to Kathleen Keville. In the transcript of that interview, he does identify the house as number 8 Glenfada Park (AP11.25).

104.296 John Porter gave written and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.1

1 AP11.16-17; WT8.44-55

104.297 In his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry, John Porter, after giving an account of events in the Columbcille Court area and what he said he saw from the north-west corner of Glenfada Park looking across the waste ground on the far side of Rossville Street, then stated:1

“I then moved to the outside of 8 Abbey Park. I then saw five people running towards me through the slipway out of Glenfada Park and a boy at the front had blood around his right eye. He was wearing a blue suit and had long dark hair. I was then called into 8 Abbey Park. I then saw a young man with auburn hair run towards the slipway in Glenfada Park. He stumbled and fell at the corner of Glenfada Park and remained there. He raised his head and I noticed that he had blood on his left hand and on the left eyebrow. I ran towards him but as I approached there was further rifle fire which struck number 19 Glenfada Park and seemed to come from the north eastern corner. I ran back to Abbey Park and went into Number 7 and noticed a young man running from the direction of Fahan Street. I then noticed an older man lying on his back between the corner of Glenfada Park and Abbey Park. ”

1 AP11.16

104.298 John Porter then gave an account of hearing a shot, seeing this young man fall in the same area as the older man, and hearing other shots and seeing soldiers threatening a group of people.1He continued:2

“I then looked at the man I had tried to rescue. He raised his head. I then noticed his green/brown corduroy jacket rise at the back twice and I realized he had been shot again. I didn’t see who fired but I saw two puffs of smoke and I think he was shot at from the southern side of Glenfada Park. He then lay still. I then saw a paratrooper move across Glenfada Park behind him. The firing ceased and I then went to the man I had tried to rescue. He was still alive but unconscious and I then helped to carry him to number eight Abbey Park. I noticed a graze wound above his left wrist and on the knuckle of the left index finger. His shirt was bloody. There were two entry wounds on the left and right side of the small of his back. I noticed a jagged exit wound on his left shoulder about 1¼" long and about ¼" thick. ”

1 AP11.16-17

2 AP11.17

104.299 John Porter gave a similar account in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.1He said that the man was lying flat when he saw the bullets strike his body and that the bullet that struck him first was the one that entered the left side of his back and that The second bullet, looking at the strike and seeing his jacket move, it was lower, towards the right, lower down his back ”.2He told the Widgery Inquiry that he had army experience of bullets striking the area of the butts when he was in charge of a butt parade (ie in charge of shooting practice).3He also told the Widgery Inquiry that when the body had been taken to the house, he looked at it to see where the wounds were.4He said he found wounds to match the places where he saw the strikes occur.5

1 WT8.44-55

2 WT8.52

3 WT8.52

4 WT8.52

5 WT8.52-53

104.300 John Porter also told the Widgery Inquiry that when he saw Jim Wray fall at first he did not think he had been shot, but had stumbled and fallen.1He was then asked, Did you think then he was shot or did you come to the conclusion afterwards that he was not? ”. John Porter answered, Not until I saw him trying to get up off the ground ”. The next question was of a leading character and was Wray was only shot when he was standing up? , to which the answer was That I couldn’t say .2

1 WT8.54

2 WT8.54

104.301 We should note that John Porter also gave a deposition dated 21st August 1973 for the coroner’s inquest into the death of (among others) Jim Wray. In this he stated that when the shootings started he moved to Glenfada Park and eventually entered the doorway of No. 8 Abbey Park:

“I was able to see the alleyway at Glenfada Park and saw a man run through the park for a few steps and fall a few feet from the corner of the flats. There was shooting going on in the background. There was a group of people standing at the corner but none made any effort to assist. I ran to lift him for he lifted his head to me. I noticed blood coming from the corner of his left eye and at the left side of his left hand. I saw his jacket jump up in the air twice, four or five inches. At that instance I realised that this young man had been struck by two bullets in the small of the back. I also saw what I took to be two puffs of gas or smoke as from a rifle in the direction just behind where the man had been shot in the back. When I got to him he was still conscious. I carried him to No. 8 Abbey Park. I subsequently learned that the name of the man was James Joseph Wray. ”

1 AP11.23

104.302 The Sunday Times Insight Team attributed a map to John Porter, though there is no record of him giving any statement or interview to the Sunday Times.1There is another Insight Team map2which does not indicate the source of the information, but in our view neither takes the matter any further.

1 AP11.22

2 AP11.21

Michael Wilson

104.303 Michael Wilson, then aged 40, gave a Keville interview (the NICRA transcription of which was dated 30th January 19721) in which he recorded that he ran into Columbcille Court and me and another boy went into a small backyard ”.2 He continued:

“… we were pinned down there and some wee lad, some lad, was a man actually about 25 or so, threw himself on the ground at the kerb and I said to him, ‘sonny, come in here out of the road’ he says ‘I can’t move, they have me pinned down’. Just as that – he was shot in the back. About five minutes after that five or six paratroopers came into, in the cul-de-sac and they called on anybody to come out with their hands up. So we – we came out with our hands up and there was five or six other ones came out from behind cars with their hands up and there was a crowd sitting round the corner at the gable end of the flats… ”

1 AW18.6

2 AW18.12

104.304 Although Michael Wilson described himself as being in Columbcille Court, his description of seeing soldiers come forward and arrest people and of the crowd sitting round the corner of the gable end is consistent only with him in fact being in Glenfada Park North. We discuss those arrests later in this report.1

1 Chapter 113

Susan and Betty Coyle

104.305 Susan Coyle gave a NICRA statement on 3rd February 1972. It was counter-signed by her daughter Betty.1 Betty Coyle added no detail to her mother’s evidence, but stated that she had witnessed everything that was contained in her mother’s statement.2

1 AC86.1-2

2 AC86.2

104.306 Susan Coyle recorded in the statement that she and her daughter were in their home, which was in the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, when she saw people shot at the rubble barricade.1 According to this account she subsequently watched as soldiers threw bodies from the barricade into a nearby “Saracen”; and then became aware of events in Glenfada Park North.2 The chronological problems raised by the sequence of the events described in her evidence are discussed below. She continued:3

“I then heard shooting at the back of my house; my daughter went to the kitchen and from the kitchen window she saw three bodies lying in front of the three pensioner’s houses in Glenfada Park. I went into the kitchen and I also saw the bodies. Just then there was another shot also from the army, at the same time one of the bodies shuddered as though struck by a bullet. There was no other people present in this part of Glenfada Park at the time. ”

1 AC86.1

2 AC86.1

3 AC86.1

Bridget O’Reilly

104.307 Bridget O’Reilly gave a NICRA statement1 in which she recorded that she was at her home in 7 Abbey Park, shown on the map below, when she first heard shooting. She crawled to and opened her front door, and called for people to come inside. She went on:2

“The firing ceased for a few minutes and I went to the window and saw the legs of a man lying outside. There were five or six people across from him and a youth lying in Glenfada Park. The shooting started again. The boys across the street had their hands above their heads. A man stepped over a low wall to reach the man who was lying down. He had his hands above his head.

At this point I saw the man lying in Glenfada Park raise himself from the ground. I saw a soldier run up to [him] and shoot him again. He fell in the road again. This same soldier then fired at the man who had stepped over the wall and this man fell. ”

1 AO66.9

2 AO66.9

104.308 We should note here that in her evidence to this Inquiry, Bridget O’Reilly told us that she did not see a soldier fire at Jim Wray. We consider that evidence below.

William O’Reilly

104.309 Bridget O’Reilly’s husband, William O’Reilly, who was 40 at the time of Bloody Sunday, also gave a NICRA statement in which he described running to his house, 7 Abbey Park, with others after he had heard shooting.1 He said that from there he saw the following incident:2

“I went to my front window and I saw a youth fall at Glenfada Park – his head was on the kerb and his body on the street. He moved slightly and just as I was going out to him more shots rang out, the youths body jerked and lay still. ”

1 AO69.7

2 AO69.7

104.310 William O’Reilly also gave written and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry. In his written statement he recorded that:1

“I was looking out of my front window on the ground floor. I do not know the exact time, but I had heard two lots of shooting. During the second lot of shooting I saw 13 or 14 people come running out [of the alleyway leading from Glenfada Park North to Abbey Park] … The last one to run out suddenly fell down. He fell heavily and his head hit the ground first. He lay with his head on the flagstones and his body on the tarmac.

He was later taken to No. 8 Abbey Park, my neighbour’s house, and I now know his name was Wray. ”

1 AO69.24

104.311 We should note here that in William O’Reilly’s account to Paul Mahon, he said that he did not actually see the man fall. We consider that evidence below.1

1 X4.33.43

104.312 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 William O’Reilly stated that he could hear general shooting at the time at which Jim Wray fell, but he was unable to associate a specific shot with the incident and he accepted that Jim Wray might just have tripped and fallen at that stage.

1 WT7.3

104.313 There was then the following exchange between William O’Reilly and counsel acting for the families:1

“Q. When he was on the ground, after he had fallen, did you see his body move at all at any time?

A. He lifted his head and tried to look round, you know.

LORD WIDGERY: I think you were indicating that he moved his head around?

A. Yes. He was trying to look round.

Mr. HILL: He raised his head from the ground and moved it around, looking about him, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. After that, what else, if anything, did you notice about him?

A. I was going to run down like, to get him up, and the body gave a jerk.

Q. Was that a sudden sort of twitch?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Were you able to see with your own eyes what caused that sudden twitch in Wray’s body?

A. No.

Q. But after this twitch, did he then fall again from the slightly raised position to the ground?

A. His head just went down again.

Q. His head had been raised?

A. Yes, he was moving about his head.

Q. And after the twitch did his head fall to the ground?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he then remain lifeless?

A. I did not see him move after.

Q. You did not see him move at all after that?

A. No.

Q. So after the body twitched his head fell to the ground, and he remained perfectly motionless after that, is that so?

A. Yes.

Q. You did not see any weapon of any sort in Wray’s hand, is that right?

A. No, I didn’t. ”

1 WT7.3-4

104.314 Counsel for the Ministry of Defence asked William O’Reilly whether he had mentioned in his written statement anything about the man’s body jerking:1

“Q. In your statement – I don’t know if you can answer this – to the Tribunal did you mention anything about the body jerking when Mr. Wray lay on the floor?

LORD WIDGERY: The answer is ‘No’.

MR. GIBBENS: In your mind, and this is the object of the answer, isn’t it, in your mind it must have been that while lying on the ground the body jerked because the boy was deliberately shot when he was lying flat and motionless?

A. That is right.

Q. And killed by that shot?

A. He was not killed.

Q. Whereas he may only have tripped up till that moment, he then jerked and lay lifeless, according to your evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you believe at that moment that he was dead?

A. Yes.

Q. Because of the second shot?

A. Yes.

Q. Why didn’t you mention it when the Tribunal’s solicitor, who enquired into this matter, took a statement from you? All you mentioned was the fall, which may have been due to a trip, in your opinion. Why didn’t you mention the shot that killed him?

A. I didn’t see a shot kill him. ”

1 WT7.5

104.315 William O’Reilly also gave a deposition dated 21st August 1973 for the coroner’s inquest into the death of (among others killed on Bloody Sunday) Jim Wray. In this he described being in his house when he heard two sets of shooting. During the second he saw a group of about 13 people run through the alleyway between Glenfada Park and Abbey Park. As he watched he saw the last person, who he subsequently learned was Jim Wray, fall flat, with his head on the footpath and his body on the tarmac. In this statement William O’Reilly made no mention of seeing this person’s body flinch or jerk on the ground.1

1 AO69.34

Gerald Campbell

104.316 Gerald Campbell, a nephew of William O’Reilly who was 18 at the time of Bloody Sunday, was also present in 7 Abbey Park when shooting broke out in Glenfada Park North.1 In an undated Keville interview, he gave the following account:2

“Er – I got into an uncle of mine’s house and we were standing at the window. Me, him and another uncle and his wife. And there was a man a fella lying, lying between an opening already shot and he lifted his head up for somebody to help him. We were going to go out and lift him but another shot hit him in the side and the position he was lying, the only place it could have came from would have been Derry walls. While he was lying – well we thought he was dead then, but he seemed to lift his head again. ”

1 AC13.1-2; AC13.9

2 AC13.9

Assessment of the evidence given in 1972 and 1973

104.317 The first matter to consider is whether from the civilian accounts given in 1972 and 1973 we can conclude that the witnesses were speaking of Jim Wray.

104.318 So far as Malachy Coyle is concerned we are sure that the man he described as having his left eyebrow shot away was Jim Wray. The medical evidence established that Jim Wray had a laceration above his left eye and a bullet wound in the area of his left shoulder.

104.319 On the face of it, the descriptions given by John Porter of the man falling and lying on the ground appear to us to be of Jim Wray. However, those representing the majority of the represented soldiers submitted that John Porter confused Jim Wray with William McKinney. We consider this submission below.

104.320 In our view the man William O’Reilly saw was Jim Wray. He told the Widgery Inquiry and the Coroner that he had learned that this was the casualty’s name and the position that he described corresponds with the photograph taken by Trevor McBride.1,2 William O’Reilly also stated to the Widgery Inquiry that the man in question was taken to 8 Abbey Park, which is where Jim Wray was carried in the aftermath of the shooting incidents, as we describe later in this part of the report.

1 M53.2

2 Paragraph 104.206

104.321 Bridget O’Reilly described herself as watching events from 7 Abbey Park and seeing a man lying in Glenfada Park. From that position we consider that she would not have been able to see the other two casualties lying further to the east, so in our view she was describing Jim Wray, who we know from Trevor McBride’s photograph1 was much closer to the entrance to the alleyway than the other two casualties. We take the same view of Gerald Campbell, whose description of seeing from 7 Abbey Park someone already shot lying between an opening is again to our minds consistent with Trevor McBride’s photograph.

1 Paragraph 104.206

104.322 On its own, Michael Wilson’s 1972 account does not identify the person whom he described being shot. The same can be said of the 1972 accounts of Susan and Betty Coyle. However, considering their evidence in the light of the accounts of those who we are satisfied did identify Jim Wray, we are of the view that they were probably describing the same casualty.

104.323 We now turn to consider the weight of the evidence given in 1972 and 1973, before considering whether later evidence reinforces or undermines what was said then about the shooting of Jim Wray. Since the medical evidence establishes that he was shot twice, our consideration of this point necessarily encompasses further questions, in particular whether he was shot twice while on the ground, or whether he fell because he had been shot and was then shot again.

104.324 With the exception of John Porter, none of the witnesses who gave evidence in 1972 and 1973 of seeing a man shot as he lay on the ground explicitly stated that they saw the casualty hit twice while prone. Malachy Coyle, Susan and Betty Coyle and Gerald Campbell indicated in their statements and interviews that only one shot struck the fallen man. The 1972 accounts of Michael Wilson and William and Bridget O’Reilly are in terms that are insufficiently precise to allow an unambiguous interpretation of their evidence on this point.

104.325 As to John Porter, in his Keville interview he gave his opinion that the man he saw falling had been shot and at the end of this interview that there was no doubt that the paratrooper had shot a wounded man on the ground ”.1He did not say in that interview that he saw the clothes on the person’s back jump up twice, but merely that I saw the clothes on his back jump up and I knew that he had been shot at close range by a rifle and though this is what he then did record in his NICRA statement,2he had earlier in this statement recorded that after the man fell (and before this incident of the clothes jumping) he saw him trying and failing to raise himself and thus had shouted to the people in the house My God, there’s a man who has been shot ”. John Porter also appears to have told the Widgery Inquiry that although he had at first thought that when the person fell he had stumbled rather than been shot, he had changed his mind when he saw the person trying to get up off the ground.3

1 AP11.26-28

2 AP11.1-3

3 WT8.44

104.326 As we have said, there is no doubt from the medical and scientific evidence that Jim Wray’s body was struck by only two bullets. John Porter’s account, taken as a whole, was to the effect that he believed that Jim Wray was shot as he was running and then twice when he was on the ground, ie three times in all. Thus his account cannot be wholly correct.

104.327 The other evidence under discussion does not directly assist much in deciding whether or not Jim Wray was shot before he fell. Malachy Coyle seems to have thought that Jim Wray had sustained a bullet wound to his left eyebrow. Michael Wilson described Jim Wray as throwing himself down at the kerb. Susan and Betty Coyle saw only the bodies on the ground. Bridget O’Reilly saw only the legs of the man and said nothing about seeing him fall, so her account of the man being shot again ” would appear to be only an assumption on her part. William O’Reilly said only that he saw a man fall, something that, as will be seen, he later retracted. Gerald Campbell described only a man lying on the ground.

104.328 Apart from the question of whether Jim Wray was shot twice while on the ground, John Porter’s evidence of witnessing Jim Wray being shot on the ground does not stand alone. He was with or close to William and Bridget O’Reilly and Gerald Campbell, who were at 7 Abbey Park. William O’Reilly said he saw the youth move slightly and just as he was going out to him more shots rang out and the youth’s body jerked and lay still ”.1Bridget O’Reilly said she saw the man in Glenfada Park raise himself from the ground and a soldier then run up to him and shoot him again ”,2though as appears from her evidence to us (which we consider below) she told us that she did not in fact see this soldier. Gerald Campbell said that he saw a fella ” lying at an opening lift his head before being shot from the side.3

1 AO69.7

2 AO66.9

3 AC13.8; AC13.9

104.329 Malachy Coyle was close enough to Jim Wray to overhear a conversation between the man who was with him and Jim Wray. Malachy Coyle said that he heard another shot coming from the direction of the soldiers and I then knew that the man had been shot again in the back of the left-hand shoulder ”.1

1 AC97.20

104.330 We consider that Michael Wilson was in or close to the same area. He said that a fella had thrown himself down at the kerb, he called to the man to come in with them; that the man had said that he could not because they had pinned him down; and Just as that – he was shot in the back ”.1Although it is possible that Michael Wilson was intending to convey that the casualty could not move because he had already been shot in the back, in our view it is more likely that what he was saying was that Jim Wray was shot in the back soon after he had said that he was pinned down.

1 AW18.12

104.331 Susan and Betty Coyle said they heard shooting at the back of their house on the eastern side of Glenfada Park North, went to the kitchen and saw three bodies lying in front of the three pensioners’ houses in Glenfada Park, ie on the southern side of that complex. “Just then there was another shot also from the army, at the same time one of the bodies shuddered as though struck by a bullet. 1

1 AC86.1

104.332 In our view, John Porter’s evidence that Jim Wray was shot twice in that position does not appear to be supported by the other accounts.

104.333 It is theoretically possible that there was an additional shot which did not hit Jim Wray when he was on the ground, but which passed through the lowest of the three entry holes in his jacket (discussed above), leading John Porter mistakenly to believe that Jim Wray had been shot twice in this position, but in our view this is unlikely, as we consider that the damage to the jacket is more consistent with the passage of the bullets causing the wounds sustained by Jim Wray.

104.334 It is also possible that John Porter’s evidence was influenced by the knowledge of Jim Wray’s wounds that he acquired in the aftermath of the shooting. It is clear from his Keville interview and his NICRA statement that he believed that Jim Wray had received an injury to his arm before he was shot as he lay on the ground.1John Porter subsequently saw wounds to Jim Wray’s torso after the casualty had been carried to 8 Abbey Park.2It might be the case that in an attempt to reconcile what he knew of the wounds with his memories of what he saw, John Porter came to believe that Jim Wray was shot in the arm before he fell, and twice in the back afterwards. This might also help to explain how he felt able to give the Widgery Inquiry detailed though inaccurate evidence about precisely where the bullets struck.3To our minds this is a more likely reason than the possibility that there was another shot that went through Jim Wray’s jacket without injuring him, but again this can only be regarded as a possibility.

1 AP11.2; AP11.26

2 AP11.3; AP11.28; WT8.52

3 WT8.47-48; WT8.52; AP11.17

104.335 We are of the view that John Porter confused the sequence of a number of events that he referred to in his evidence. We are satisfied that Jim Wray received all of his bullet wounds before soldiers made arrests in Glenfada Park North, and before anyone was shot in Abbey Park. John Porter’s evidence was to the effect that these latter two events took place between Jim Wray falling and his being shot as he lay on the ground.1 Similarly, Susan and Betty Coyle thought that the incident in which a man was shot on the ground took place after they had seen soldiers lifting bodies into a “Saracen” in Rossville Street. Again, for reasons given elsewhere in this report,2this seems to be an incorrect sequence. However, we are not persuaded that this significantly devalues the evidence of these witnesses about Jim Wray. It must be borne in mind that they, like other civilians, were being asked to give accounts of what on any view were rapidly moving, horrific and frightening scenes of shooting and people falling, all in a short space of time. We do not find it surprising that their accounts differed, or that they became confused about the order in which events occurred.

1 AP11.2-3; AP11.26-28; AP11.16-17; WT8.44-54 2Chapters 113, 121, 122, 123 and 124

104.336 It follows from the foregoing that in our view there is a body of evidence, collected very soon after the event, which on the face of it points towards Jim Wray being shot on the ground, though only John Porter’s account suggests that he was shot twice in that position.

104.337 To our minds it is not possible simply to dismiss this evidence as being somehow invented, orchestrated or the product of a growing rumour or myth about the shooting of Jim Wray, especially since most of it was gathered so soon after the events of the day.

104.338 The name of the interviewer who took or counter-signed a NICRA statement is recorded in five cases involving the witnesses considered above. A different person took each of these five statements.1,2 There is nothing to suggest that those giving their accounts and the five people who took their statements somehow sought to orchestrate these accounts, or indeed were even aware of what other witnesses had said.

1 AC97.20; AO66.9; AO69.7; AC86.1-2; AP11.3

2 One of these statements was co-signed by two witnesses, Susan and Betty Coyle (AC86.1-2).

104.339 However, those representing the majority of the represented soldiers have advanced a number of criticisms in relation to the evidence and the witnesses discussed above, which we now turn to consider.

Criticisms of the civilian evidence

104.340 So far as Malachy Coyle is concerned, the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers suggested that there was considerable reason to doubt his account not least that he believed that James Wray was shot in the back of the left shoulder ”.1Malachy Coyle did indeed give such a description in his NICRA statement, and it is the case that Jim Wray was actually shot in the right side of the back, where both entry wounds were located. However, as the medical evidence establishes, Wound 1 did exit in the area of the left shoulder. We take the view that far from throwing doubt on Malachy Coyle’s account, it can be said with considerable force that his evidence as to where in his body Jim Wray was shot greatly strengthens that account; on the grounds that what Malachy Coyle saw was the effect of a bullet exiting Jim Wray’s left shoulder but wrongly, though reasonably, thought that this is where the bullet entered.

1 FS7.1959-1960

104.341 These representatives also suggested that other incidents described in Malachy Coyle’s evidence (both that given in 1972 and later) were quite incredible . Specifically, they referred to his account of seeing, immediately after Jim Wray had been shot, the close-range shooting of a boy in blue denims in circumstances which cannot be correct . We discuss this aspect of Malachy Coyle’s evidence later in this report1and conclude that he was mistaken about this, though for the reasons we give, this mistake too was understandable. In any event the fact remains that his account of seeing Jim Wray shot on the ground is to our minds supported by the other evidence discussed above.

1 Chapter 110

104.342 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers also suggested that the circumstances in which Malachy Coyle came to give his NICRA statement were relevant to an assessment of his reliability as a witness. Based on an interview that Malachy Coyle gave to the researcher Paul Mahon in March 19981they made two submissions: first that Malachy Coyle told Paul Mahon that he had had contact with Jim Wray’s father, James Wray Senior, at an early stage after the events of Bloody Sunday, yet Malachy Coyle deliberately concealed this from this Inquiry; and second that Malachy Coyle told Paul Mahon that it was James Wray Senior who had asked him to make a NICRA statement.2

1 X4.45.1-154

2 FS7.1963-1965

104.343 As to the first of these submissions, we are not persuaded that Malachy Coyle intentionally kept this information from the Inquiry; when he gave his evidence to this Inquiry he was not asked about this issue. As to the second submission, it is not at all clear from the Mahon interview whether James Wray Senior asked Malachy Coyle to give a NICRA statement. In its context it could also be read as James Wray Senior asking Malachy Coyle to explain to him what he had witnessed.1However, on the assumption that James Wray Senior did ask Malachy Coyle to give a statement, it does not follow that the evidence he provided was untrue or influenced by James Wray Senior. It is also relevant to note that Malachy Coyle told Paul Mahon that he thought that Jim Wray’s father approached him because somebody told him that I must have been talking about it ”.2To our minds this indicates that it was because Malachy Coyle had previously spoken of the circumstances in which Jim Wray had been shot that the latter’s father was naturally anxious to hear a first hand account.

1 X4.45.76-79

2 X4.45.76

104.344 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers made no specific criticisms of the accounts of the shooting of Jim Wray that Michael Wilson, Bridget O’Reilly and Gerald Campbell gave in their NICRA statements.1

1 FS7.1965-1969; FS7.1974-1975

104.345 In relation to William O’Reilly, these representatives drew attention to the fact that he made no reference to seeing Jim Wray’s prone body jerk as if shot in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry, in his examination in chief before the Widgery Inquiry, or in his statement to the Coroner.1While this is true, we are not persuaded that this is sufficient to reject the account William O’Reilly gave in his NICRA statement and orally to the Widgery Inquiry.

1 FS7.1969-1970

104.346 The same representatives criticised the evidence of John Porter on a number of grounds.1

1 FS7.1975-1983

104.347 First, they submitted that his chronology of events is wholly at odds with that given by other witnesses.1We are of the view, for the reasons given above, that this factor does not entail that his account of seeing Jim Wray shot on the ground should be rejected.

1 FS7.1975

104.348 Second, they submitted that the details contained in John Porter’s Keville interview showed that the casualty that he saw in Glenfada Park North was William McKinney, rather than Jim Wray. They asserted that John Porter said in that interview that the man in question was shot in the arm and as he fell he cut his right eye ”.1 They also argued that John Porter’s use of language suggested that this casualty was taken to 7 Abbey Park.2 As these representatives pointed out, Jim Wray was not shot in the arm, had a cut to his left eyebrow and not his right eye, and was taken to 8 Abbey Park after he had been shot. In contrast, William McKinney was shot in his left arm, did have a laceration to his right eye, and was carried from Glenfada Park North to 7 Abbey Park.3 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers concluded that the man John Porter originally described in his Keville interview was “on the facts described by Mr Porter, clearly William McKinney. He has later altered his evidence to fit the location, dress and wounds of James Wray, no doubt having been impressed by the rumour that James Wray was the man who had been shot while prone. 4

1 FS7.1978

2 FS7.1978

3 FS7.1978-1979; FS7.1982

4 FS7.1982

104.349 When considering this suggestion it is important to bear in mind, as we have already noted, that there is an unsigned, edited and inaccurate transcription of the Keville interview dated 31st January 1972.1 It is the case that William McKinney, one of the casualties shot in Glenfada Park North, as we describe later in this chapter, was shot in the left arm and had a laceration in the area of his right eye. However, it is wrong to submit that in his Keville interview John Porter stated that the man he saw had been shot in the arm because the words he used were seemingly shot in the arm ”.2 The word seemingly was omitted from the edited transcript of the Keville tape.3

1 AP11.19

2 AP11.26

3 AP11.19

104.350 Similarly, in the Keville tape, John Porter said that the man fell and cut his right eye or his left eyebrow on the edge of the path, while the edited transcription omitted the italicised words. Those acting for the soldiers relied on the edited version.1

1 FS7.1976

104.351 It is true, of course, that later in his Keville interview John Porter did say that he helped men to carry this man into the house and one of the shots was in his arm .1However, he also said that one of the bullets was in his lower right side and this bullet’s sitting probably in his body but er – the other shots that they fired at close range entered his left side and came out of his right shoulder blade ”. Jim Wray had an exit wound in his left shoulder, but if John Porter had simply confused left and right, an exit wound coming out of the shoulder blade is a reasonably accurate description of one of Jim Wray’s wounds. As will be seen below, it cannot have been (whether left or right) a description of the exit of William McKinney’s body wound, which was below and to the left of the left nipple.2We consider below the evidence that John Porter gave about a shot wound in the arm.

1 AP11.28

2 D0281

104.352 In relation to John Porter’s evidence of where the casualty was taken, he stated in his Keville interview that I went out and helped men carry this man into the house ”.1 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers submitted that the totality of John Porter’s 1972 evidence was that he left 7 Abbey Park when he went to pick up the casualty, and that his reference to carrying the man into the house indicated that he returned to number 7.2

1 AP11.28

2 FS7.1978-1979

104.353 We have no doubt that William McKinney was carried to 7 Abbey Park, while Jim Wray was taken to 8 Abbey Park. However, it is also clear from John Porter’s evidence that he had been present in both 7 and 8 Abbey Park during the shooting in Glenfada Park North and Abbey Park. The two houses were next door to one another, and it seems to us that his use of language at the end of his interview was not intended to distinguish between them. Alternatively, he might simply have confused where he went at that point, perhaps understandably given that he was recalling the assistance that he gave to a dying man in the aftermath of an incident in which a number of people were killed. In our view, what John Porter said in his Keville interview is consistent with his having helped carry Jim Wray to 8 Abbey Park.

104.354 In support of their submission that John Porter described William McKinney rather than Jim Wray, those representing the majority of the represented soldiers also drew attention to the fact that he described in his NICRA statement someone beginning to wrap a large wide bandage around the body and that the autopsy photographs show (as they do) just such a bandage wrapped around the body of William McKinney.1The difficulty with this argument is that there is nothing to suggest that the same measure was not applied to Jim Wray. On the contrary, a list of the material taken from Jim Wray’s body and forwarded to the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science includes what is recorded as a field dressing from body ”.2

1 FS7.1979

2 D0227

104.355 There are other elements of John Porter’s NICRA statement that in our view undermine the proposition that the man that he saw and carried was William McKinney. In the statement he described the wounds that he saw once he had taken the casualty to the house:1We lifted his shirt up and he had a bullet wound on his right lower back and also one on his left lower back. As we pulled his shirt further up I noticed the long triangular shape laceration on his left shoulder. This is an accurate description of three of the four visible shot wounds sustained by Jim Wray, but not of those sustained by William McKinney. The fact that the wound on Jim Wray’s left lower back was an exit rather than an entry wound seems to us in this context to be neither here nor there.

1 AP11.3

104.356 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers again suggested that John Porter’s description in this statement of carrying a casualty to the house suggested that he was referring to taking William McKinney to 7 Abbey Park.1However, a consideration of this document as a whole suggests that this was not the case. John Porter stated that he rushed out to the casualty with other men from the houses , suggesting that he was not intentionally distinguishing between 7 Abbey Park and its neighbours.2Further, at the end of the statement John Porter described returning to the area after he had moved away. He commented that he went into No. 7 where a man was being tended by a doctor 3(emphasis added). His language here does not suggest that this man, William McKinney in 7 Abbey Park, was the same casualty that he had seen shot while on the ground and had subsequently helped to carry and treat.

1 AP11.3; FS7.1979

2 AP11.3

3 AP11.3

104.357 Although in his Keville interview1 John Porter described seeing a man on the ground seemingly shot in the arm and said that when he helped to carry this man into the house one of the shots was in his arm ”,2 it is notable that in his NICRA statement John Porter did not describe seeing the wound to the casualty’s arm after the wounded man had been carried to the house. Instead, he commented that when he first saw the man fall – at a point when John Porter was in 8 Abbey Park and the casualty was some distance away in Glenfada Park – he saw blood on his wrist and seems to have assumed that this was the result of a bullet wound somewhere on his arm.3 Later, when the casualty had been carried into the house, John Porter described the wounds to the torso in the terms given above. He went on: I then said that the man would have a wound in his lower right/left arm and I stood up and left the house ”.4 It therefore appears from this statement that John Porter did not see an arm wound when he was in the house. In his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry,5 John Porter stated that when he first saw the casualty lying at the corner of Glenfada Park he noticed that he had blood on his left hand ; later, after the injured man had been brought into 8 Abbey Park, John Porter noticed a graze wound above his left wrist and on the knuckle of the left index finger . In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, John Porter gave a similar account,6 adding that when the casualty had tried to lift himself from the ground his left hand was hanging ”.7 Dr Carson’s autopsy report recorded that Jim Wray had an abrasion, 1¾ x ½ cm., on the back of the [left] hand near its ulnar border ”.8 Although neither Dr Carson nor Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan considered this injury to have been caused by a bullet,9 in our view it is likely that John Porter did. His description of a graze wound is considerably closer to the injury to Jim Wray’s wrist than to the far more extensive wound caused by a bullet going through William McKinney’s left forearm.10

1 AP11.26

2 AP11.28

3 AP11.2

4 AP11.3

5 AP11.16

6 WT8.47-48; WT8.52

7 WT8.52

8 D0249

9 D0253; E2.0036

10 D0282

104.358 In the light of this evidence we consider that while John Porter thought that the man had been shot in the arm, and that the bullet had, or had also, caused a graze wound, he was not describing William McKinney rather than Jim Wray.

104.359 We now turn to other points of criticism that have been made of John Porter’s evidence. In his Keville interview John Porter had said, I saw the smoke at the back of his clothes ”.1In his NICRA statement he said that I saw some smoke rise from where he’d been shot ”,2in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry that I didn’t see who fired but I saw two puffs of smoke 3and in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry that “I also saw what I took to be two puffs of gas or smoke as from a rifle … They came from the direction just behind the man where the shot struck his back ”.4

1 AP11.28

2 AP11.3

3 AP11.17

4 WT8.47

104.360 Those acting on behalf of the majority of the represented soldiers pointed out that only in his oral evidence did John Porter add the detail of seeing smoke from a rifle ”.1They also submit that in only one of his first two statements did John Porter mention smoke and this coming from the injured man’s clothes ”.2

1 FS7.1981

2 FS7.1981

104.361 In fact, the words John Porter actually used in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry were as from a rifle ”. In addition, as can be seen from the quotations set out above, John Porter in his Keville interview said he saw smoke at the back of his clothes and did not say that he saw smoke coming from the injured man’s clothes. These latter words only appear in the inaccurate and unsigned transcription of the Keville interview.1We are not persuaded that this devalues the accounts that John Porter actually gave.

1 AP11.19

104.362 The legal representatives of the majority of the represented soldiers raised one further issue from John Porter’s Keville interview in support of their suggestion that he saw someone other than Jim Wray. Referring to what they cited as John Porter’s opinion that the casualty that he saw had been shot from Butcher Gate, they argued that this was not an assumption that would have made sense to a man observing James Wray from a house in Abbey Park ”.1 However, this apparent problem arises from selective quotation from the original sources. John Porter did not say he thought that the shot originated from Butcher Gate; instead he stated that In my opinion this man was shot from the walls behind the flats to the right of – right of Butcher Gate 2 (emphasis added). This was also correctly transcribed by NICRA in 1972.3In our view this was an opinion that did make sense – John Porter would have been aware that there were soldiers on the City Walls and the geography was such that it could easily be thought that someone to the right of Butcher Gate could have shot Jim Wray.

1 FS7.1978

2 AP11.26

3 AP11.19

104.363 For these reasons, we reject the criticisms made of the 1972 accounts given by John Porter and the submission that John Porter described William McKinney and not Jim Wray. It follows that we also reject the allegation that John Porter has in fact re-written his evidence for the benefit of the Widgery Inquiry in order to match the known facts relating to James Wray ”.1

1 FS7.1983

104.364 Those acting on behalf of some of the soldiers submitted that we should doubt the 1972 accounts given by several of the witnesses considered above because of the apparent failure of Mr Porter, Mr Campbell and the O’Reillys to repeat their shocking account to those around them ”.1The legal representatives of the majority of the represented soldiers referred to the evidence of James Logue,2Maureen Doherty3and John Carr,4all of whom were in 7 Abbey Park and yet did not refer to Jim Wray being shot on the ground in their 1972 accounts. We see no force in this point, which is based on the dubious assumption that these individuals would probably have recorded in their statements not just what they saw themselves, but what others told them they had seen. It seems also to be suggested that it is suspicious that these witnesses did not themselves see Jim Wray being shot as he lay on the ground. This suggestion is also based on an equally dubious assumption that these witnesses were looking at Jim Wray at the moment when he was shot and we again see no force in it.

1 FS7.1983-86

2 AL18.1

3 AD85.1

4 AC42.1

Later civilian evidence relating to Jim Wray’s death

104.365 Of those who gave accounts in 1972 that we have considered above, Malachy Coyle, Bridget O’Reilly and Gerald Campbell gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. Michael Wilson and William O’Reilly gave written statements, but were not well enough to give oral evidence. John Porter is dead and gave no evidence to this Inquiry, and we were unable to trace Susan and Betty Coyle.

Malachy Coyle

104.366 Malachy Coyle stated in his written evidence to this Inquiry that after he had been pulled into the back yard of the corner house at the south gable end of the west block of Glenfada Park North by a bald man in his forties whom he did not know, he looked through the gaps in the wooden fence and saw three people lying to his right on the south side.1The person closest to him was still alive:2

“He was lying face down half on and half off the south pavement very close to the south west alleyway leading out of the car park. One knee was on the pavement and the other was in the car park. His head was nearest to me and his feet were pointing back east towards the Rossville Flats. His hands were lying outstretched on the ground above his head and I could see that they were empty and that there was nothing lying near them. His head was turned towards where we were hiding and he was looking directly at us. I could see that he had received injury to his right eyebrow which looked like it had been blown away. At the time, I assumed he had been shot and that this was why he was lying on the ground. However, his injury did not seem serious (i.e. life threatening). ”

1 AC97.12

2 AC97.12

104.367 In his oral evidence Malachy Coyle explained that at the time he assumed that the injury to the man’s eyebrow had been caused by a glancing blow from a bullet, and that it was this injury that he did not think was life threatening. He also agreed that his 1972 statement that the injury was to the left eyebrow would be the more accurate.1

1 Day 156/21-22

104.368 A little later in his written evidence1Malachy Coyle stated:

“Once I had determined that the two men lying behind the man closest to me were probably dead, I was only concerned for the man closest to me who was clearly still alive. I do not recall what he was wearing, although I am certain that he did not have any kind of hat on his head. I remember that he raised his head from the pavement and looked directly at the bald man and me and said: ‘I can’t move my legs ’. By this point, I know that I was in a state of complete shock. It is a strange feeling. Your emotions become very detached and even though you are on the point of panicking it suddenly becomes possible to think very very clearly. I can remember talking to the bald man in the backyard with me. He was saying: ‘Keep calm. Keep calm ’. I must have had a premonition that something really awful was going to happen, as I remember saying to the wounded man: ‘Don’t move. Pretend you’re dead ’.

It was moments later that I heard a shot coming from the direction of the Columbcille Court/Kells Walk area to my left (north). As I heard this shot, I saw the pavement near the wounded man explode in sparks. At the same time, I heard the wounded man groan and I saw his head (which was still lifted towards me) go down slowly towards the pavement. He did not move again and I knew he was dead. I was convinced that the shot that caused the sparks to fly from the pavement near by him had killed him. I did not know who this man was at the time but I found out later that he was Jim Wray. ”

1 AC97.13

104.369 In his oral evidence, Malachy Coyle said that he had seen no soldier close to Jim Wray while he was looking at him, including when he saw him shot on the ground.1As already noted, he also told us that he was 16 at the time, not 14 as stated at the top of his NICRA statement.2

1 Day 156/91-92

2 Day 156/98

104.370 According to Malachy Coyle’s evidence to this Inquiry, Jim Wray was lying at an angle, with the left side of his body propped up on the pavement and the right side lower down, resting in the gutter.1This approximate position was reproduced in the photograph below, although Malachy Coyle explained that Jim Wray was not raising himself with his hands and his feet.2The arrow on the photograph indicated roughly where Malachy Coyle thought the bullet would have struck underneath Jim Wray’s body.3

1 Day 156/33-35; AC97.12

2 Day 156/64; AC97.27

3 Day 156/34-35

104.371 We consider below the submission that the position of Jim Wray’s body as recalled by Malachy Coyle meant that, on the basis of the medical and scientific evidence, Jim Wray could not have sustained either wound while on the ground.1

1 FS7.1965

104.372 Malachy Coyle was interviewed by the television production company Praxis Films Ltd in 1991 during preparations for a documentary marking the 20th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.1 This brief account seems to us to be consistent with the evidence he gave to this Inquiry.

1 O 4.1-19; Day 233/18-19

104.373 He was also interviewed by Paul Mahon in 1998.1Again Malachy Coyle gave an account that is broadly consistent with his evidence to this Inquiry.2He said that the kerb was holding up the left side of Jim Wray’s body, and that Jim Wray moved his left arm in an attempt to raise himself from the ground.

1 X4.45.1-154

2 X4.45.39-44; X4.45.102-108; X4.45.128-136

104.374 We should note at this point that by the time that he came to give evidence to this Inquiry, Malachy Coyle had come to believe that the man who dragged him into the yard in Glenfada Park North was John McCourt.1 This is possible, as John McCourt told this Inquiry that he pulled a teenage boy into cover in the yard outside his wife’s grandmother’s house in the south-west corner of Glenfada Park North.2

1 Day 156/18-19

2 AM144.2; AM144.7; Day 152/136-139

104.375 In his evidence to us John McCourt stated that while he was lying behind the fence in the yard he called to the people lying outside to keep still and not move.1 He also stated that he then heard two or perhaps three shots that he instinctively knew had been fired in Glenfada Park North.2

1 AM144.2

2 AM144.2

104.376 There is a Keville interview attributed to a Joe McCourt”, according to which:1

“I was in Glenfada Park on Sunday when I seen five British soldiers run into the park. They fired on four fellas carrying a wounded civilian. They fired at the civ – wounded civilian and hit him in the head. These four blokes run with the civilian and had to drop him at the far side of Glenfada Park. These five soldiers then went to the corner where there was about thirty civilians standing. They ordered the civilians round the corner and one of the soldiers hit a fella in the mouth with his rifle. He then proceeded to kick another fella. Then two soldiers attacked a woman, they began to kick her and hit her. Three fella then broke away from the crowd and run … soldier then lifted his rifle and fired at them. I was unable to see whether he hit them because they were then out of sight. This s – soldier then run over into the corner of Glenfada Park. At this time I was standing in er – my wife’s Granny’s kitchen. I looked out the window and seen two fellas lying dead. A first aid girl came over and showed the red cross – the red cross on her sleeve but the soldier ignored it and fired at her. Er – if the girl hadn’t of threw herself on top of one of the dead fellas this soldier would have killed her. The soldier then run away. Thats about all I seen. ”

1 X2.35.17

104.377 However, despite the fact that the address given for Joe McCourt was the same address as that of John McCourt, this witness denied that this interview was with him, on the grounds that he had not seen anyone being killed, only dead bodies.1 The interview contained nothing about sheltering in a yard with a teenage boy. In view of the fact that the address was the same, in our view John McCourt probably did give this interview.

1 Day 152/147; Day 152/169

104.378 Malachy Coyle and John McCourt did not know each other at the time of Bloody Sunday and there are some differences in the detail of their accounts. Malachy Coyle’s recollection to this Inquiry was that he was in the yard of the southernmost house of the western block.1If in fact he was with John McCourt then on the latter’s evidence he was in the adjoining yard to the north.2However, these positions would only have been a few feet apart and in our view whichever yard it was makes no difference to the validity of Malachy Coyle’s account.

1 AC97.12; AC97.21; Day 156/58-59

2 Day 152/138-139; AM144.7

104.379 In his evidence to us, John McCourt stated that he banged on the door of his wife’s grandmother’s house and he and the boy went in, crawling on their hands and knees.1 In contrast Malachy Coyle’s 1972 recollection (and his evidence to us) was that the man he was with walked out of the yard and that he followed with his hands on his head.2

1 AM144.3

2 AC97.20; AC97.6

104.380 It is not clear whether Malachy Coyle and John McCourt were in the same yard. On the whole, in view of the differences in their accounts, we consider, though we are far from certain, that they probably were not and that Malachy Coyle was mistaken in coming to believe that he was with John McCourt.

104.381 It was argued by the representatives of many of the soldiers that Malachy Coyle had deliberately obfuscated his evidence to this Inquiry as to the identity and actions of the man with whom he took cover.1 We consider this submission to be without merit. Malachy Coyle was an impressive witness who we are sure was trying his best to give an accurate and truthful account of events. In our view the points raised in those submissions in relation to his identification of John McCourt do not devalue Malachy Coyle’s evidence about Jim Wray.

1 FS7.1960-1963

104.382 On the basis that Malachy Coyle was with John McCourt, the same representatives submit that their evidence is strangely at odds ”, in that they describe being in different yards.1 Presumably this phrase is intended to suggest that this casts doubt on Malachy Coyle’s accounts. We disagree. Even assuming they were in the same yard, this does not to our minds detract from Malachy Coyle’s description of what he saw.

1 FS7.1960

104.383 These representatives also pointed out that John McCourt could see into Glenfada Park North but saw nothing of the shooting Mr Coyle describes and makes no reference to the boy he was with mentioning this to him either ”.1 It again appears to be suggested that this throws doubt on the honesty and reliability of Malachy Coyle’s evidence and again we disagree. The first part of this suggestion proceeds upon the assumption that John McCourt would have noticed a shot hitting Jim Wray on the ground had that occurred. This in turn assumes that John McCourt was looking at Jim Wray at the same time as Malachy Coyle. There is nothing to indicate that this was the case. The second part of this suggestion proceeds upon the assumption that the two were in the same yard and that since John McCourt in his evidence did not refer to Malachy Coyle saying anything about seeing Jim Wray being shot on the ground, it can be inferred that Malachy Coyle did not say anything. John McCourt’s evidence was in fact directed to what he had himself seen and heard when sheltering in the yard and he was not asked when he gave evidence to this Inquiry whether the person he was with had said anything. However, it is the case that in his Paul Mahon interview, Malachy Coyle said that he did not say anything to the man he was with, because he was too terrified to do so.2 We have no reason to doubt this. Thus even if we are wrong in our view that the two were probably not in the same yard, we are not persuaded that the fact that Malachy Coyle said nothing to the man he was with about the apparent shooting of a man on the ground throws any doubt on the honesty or reliability of his evidence when assessed as a whole.

1 FS7.1960

2 X4 45.44

Michael Wilson

104.384 Michael Wilson was unable to give oral evidence to this Inquiry due to ill health, but he did provide a written statement.1

1 AW18.1-5

104.385 Michael Wilson stated to this Inquiry that he took cover in the garden of the southernmost flat of the western block in Glenfada Park North, and recalled two or three other people being with him. While there he saw a youth fall or throw himself to the ground to his right; he was unsure whether the youth had been shot. Michael Wilson urged him to take cover in the flat, but the youth said he could not move, possibly adding that he was “pinned down ”. The youth was lying on his stomach with his body tight up against the kerb and his head pointing towards the alleyway. He was not moaning as he spoke.1

1 AW18.2

104.386 Michael Wilson stated that as he lay on the ground, the man was shot. He recorded that he saw the round hit him in the middle of his back and the coat lifted about 1” or so and left a small tear in his coat ”. The man had made no attempt to get up or to move his hands, and Michael Wilson believed that his left hand might have been under his body, though he could not see it. His other hand was on the kerb near me. Michael Wilson did not see where the shot came from, and could see no soldiers at this time, though he explained that his view might have been obstructed due to his position behind the slatted fence.1

1 AW18.2

104.387 Michael Wilson’s physical description of the man on the ground – perhaps 20–21 years old, about 5ft 10in, wearing a dark, suit-like jacket and jeans, and no hat1 is not entirely consistent with that of Jim Wray, but bearing in mind his 1972 account, together with his description to us of where he was, where the person fell and how he continued to watch that person, we are left in no doubt that Michael Wilson was giving us an account that related to Jim Wray.

1 AW18.2

104.388 Michael Wilson also commented in his written statement that when he said in his Keville interview that he was in Columbcille Court, he must have meant Glenfada Park North. He was clearly right about this.1

1 AW18.4

Bridget O’Reilly

104.389 Bridget O’Reilly, who watched events unfold from the window of her house at 7 Abbey Park, described in her written evidence to this Inquiry how Jim Wray was lying half on the pavement and half off in the south-west corner of Glenfada Park North.1She stated that she saw him move his head and look up,2before his body jerked and his coat jumped up.3Bridget O’Reilly also recorded: Then I saw a soldier coming into view and I think that he shot Jim Wray again … The soldier stepped over the top of him. 4

1 AO66.1-2; AO66.5; AO66.8

2 AO66.1

3 AO66.2

4 AO66.2

104.390 In her oral evidence, Bridget O’Reilly, when asked about this part of her written statement, said that she did not actually see the soldier aim his gun at Jim Wray.1She also said that she saw Jim Wray move only his head, not his shoulders, while he was on the ground.2

1 Day 172/8

2 Day 172/22-23

William O’Reilly

104.391 William O’Reilly, who witnessed events from his home at 7 Abbey Park, gave an interview to Paul Mahon. This takes on added significance because William O’Reilly was unable to give oral evidence to this Inquiry owing to his ill health. William O’Reilly told Paul Mahon that when he looked from his house towards the alleyway leading from Abbey Park to Glenfada Park North he saw Jim Wray lying in the gap;1he had not seen Jim Wray fall.2William O’Reilly recalled that Jim Wray was lying with his body on the car park roadway and his head on the pavement, and that he was looking around.3However, he formed the impression that Jim Wray must have been paralysed with the shot.4William O’Reilly said that he was standing next to another man, who Paul Mahon suggested was John Porter,5and that this man suggested going out to try to get to Jim Wray. Before they could do so William O’Reilly heard a shot, which seemed to come from somewhere closer than the previous firing that he had heard.6William O’Reilly saw Jim Wray’s coat jump once, and either he or the other man commented that Jim Wray would now be dead.7Both men stepped back a little from the door, and William O’Reilly saw a soldier enter Abbey Park, stepping over Jim Wray apparently without touching him.8

1 X4.33.14-15

2 X4.33.43

3 X4.33.15

4 X4.33.15-16

5 X4.33.14; X4.33.16-18

6 X4.33.18-19

7 X4.33.19

8 X4.33.20-21

104.392 William O’Reilly was able to provide a written statement to this Inquiry, in which he gave a similar account to that contained in his Mahon interview.1He added that his current memory did not fully tally with some of the things that he had said in his earlier statements, such as seeing Jim Wray fall.2He also told us that he did not know the man who was with him at the front door,3but in our view Paul Mahon was correct in identifying that man as John Porter.

1 AO69.1-2

2 AO69.3

3 AO69.2

Gerald Campbell

104.393 Gerald Campbell stated in his written evidence to this Inquiry that he had gone to 7 Abbey Park, where his uncle William lived.1In the course of this statement he recorded:2

“Another recollection I have of that day is of seeing a man at the gap between Glenfada Park North and Glenfada Park South at about the point marked H on the attached map (grid reference H14), although I cannot say exactly when I saw him. I know that I was at the kitchen window when I saw him. I never saw the man’s face and I do not know if he was wearing a hat. He was lying face down with his head and shoulders on a pavement. I could see the top of his head pointing towards me. He kept raising his head, which I will never forget because afterwards I felt that I should have been able to help him. He raised his head three times and then I saw a cloud of dust inches away from the right side of him as I was looking at him, which would have been his left. His body raised on his left side and then he fell down. He did not move again. The way he moved is clear in my mind. I assumed from the cloud of dust I saw and the fact that the man lifted his left side up, that a bullet coming from his right hit the ground to his left first, bounced off the wall and then hit him on his left side. I saw the cloud of dust and the body lifting more or less together. I assumed that he had been shot from the northern area of Glenfada Park North. ”

1 AC13.2

2 AC13.4

104.394 The point marked “H” by Gerald Campbell was right in the south-west corner of Glenfada Park North.1

1 AC13.7

104.395 Gerald Campbell had to be subpoenaed to give oral evidence, though in our view this has no relevance to our assessment of this witness. Asked about this description of a bullet striking the ground, he said:1

“Well, that is only an assumption of mine. I do not know what happened him, you know, I seen the cloud – I seen a cloud of like either dust or smoke. The body just flipped to one side and that is what I recall, like, but I cannot remember – I do not know how I would know it was going to bounce off a wall or anything, like. ”

1 Day 401/48

104.396 Gerald Campbell told us that he did not recall giving a Keville interview, though he agreed that he lived at the address recorded by the Gerald Campbell who can be heard on the relevant tape.1He said that he could not remember the sequence in which things occurred.2He also said that he could not see the whole of the body of the man on the ground, but only his head and shoulders and that he was lying face down.3His recollection was that he could not see more than about at most a foot to either side of the body and when asked if he had seen a soldier standing over the body, he said, No, I could not see to either side of that body ”.4

1 Day 401/52; X2.33.19; Aud 33 26.55

2 Day 401/57

3 Day 401/66

4 Day 401/67-68

Assessment of the later evidence of those who gave accounts in 1972 and 1973

104.397 In assessing the later evidence and accounts given by Malachy Coyle, Michael Wilson, William and Bridget O’Reilly, and Gerald Campbell we have borne in mind the passage of the years and the consequent risk of memories fading or become distorted, though we should say that we are confident that these witnesses were honestly telling us what they believed they had seen and heard. With this caveat in mind in our view the later accounts of these witnesses did not materially undermine the accounts that they gave in 1972, save that Bridget O’Reilly told us that she did not now think that she did see a soldier aim his rifle at Jim Wray as he lay on the ground;1and her husband that he did not think that he actually saw Jim Wray fall.2

1 Day 172/8

2 AO69.3

Other civilian witnesses

104.398 A number of other witnesses have given evidence to this Inquiry relating to the shooting of Jim Wray.

104.399 Joe Mahon, then a 16-year-old schoolboy, was shot as he made his way along the southern side of Glenfada Park North. As is described later in this chapter, he was grievously wounded in the stomach and fell to the ground close to where Jim Wray was lying, as is shown in the photograph below.

104.400 Joe Mahon gave a vivid account to this Inquiry of seeing, as he lay on the ground, a soldier walk diagonally across Glenfada Park North towards the fallen Jim Wray. According to this account, the soldier shot Jim Wray twice in the back at point blank range, while standing as shown by Joe Mahon, the figure on the right, in the photograph below, and then continued into the south-western alleyway leading to Abbey Park.1In the late 1990s, Joe Mahon gave brief accounts of this incident to the journalist Don Mullan2and to Channel 4 News,3and a more detailed version to Jimmy McGovern and Stephen Gargan in a research interview conducted by them in preparation for their dramatisation of the events of Bloody Sunday.4

1 AM18.4; Day 167/24-26; Day 167/47; Day 167/66-68; AM18.12

2 AM18.75-76; AM18.82-83

3 AM18.23

4 AM18.48; AM18.55-61; AM18.64-67

104.401 Joe Mahon did not give evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, but he was interviewed by a number of different people in the aftermath of his shooting. We have written notes or accounts apparently based on these interviews. In none of them is there any mention of Joe Mahon seeing Jim Wray shot in the manner described above.

104.402 On 2nd March 1972, the day after he had been discharged from hospital, Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobson of the Sunday Times Insight Team interviewed Joe Mahon at his home. This Inquiry has a copy of notes made of that interview, seemingly by Peter Pringle,1 as well as a map and an internal memorandum that appear to be based on them.2 Joe Mahon is recorded as saying the following about the point at which he was shot and the incidents that occurred directly afterwards:3

“i was hit as i was walking along the wooden fencing. There were two others hit in front of me. i fell to the ground and at first i thought it was a rubber bullet. I assume the shot came from a soldier who I had seen enter through the alley from Rossville St and come up behind a van parked on the east side of the square. The soldier pointed a rifle in my direction.

After I had been shot and was lying face down on the ground I could see about six others [sic] soldiers against the east wall. The other two bodies: one was a few yards in front of me and dressed in a heavy dark overcoat and I think had glasses … and the other was further down lying in the entrance to the passage way with his head pointing through to Abbey Park.

The next thing I recall clearly was seeing a single soldier on the opposite side of the court from the others, looking towards the passageway and firing two or three shots from under his arm and at the same time shouting to the other soldiers: ‘I’ve got another one [of] them Dave.’ The soldier then pulled back towards the van. i think it could have been the first soldier i saw pointing a rifle in my direction, but I’m not certain. I raised my head to look around and a woman from the balcony of a flat diagonally across from me shouted to me: ‘Lie still, son, don’t move. Pretend you’re dead.’ ”

1 AM18.14-16

2 AM18.18-21

3 AM18.14-15

104.403 The Sunday Times archive contained a map and a memorandum which appear to be based on the material contained in the notes.1

1 AM18.18-21

104.404 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Joe Mahon denied the accuracy of the account contained in the notes.1 He recalled being interviewed at home by, he thought, two Sunday Times journalists, but we did not prepare a written statement together and I was never given anything to look at or sign .2 In relation to the notes quoted above Joe Mahon stated: “The statement appears to me to have been put together by someone from the Sunday Times after that visit, and it is not an accurate account of what happened to me on Bloody Sunday. 3He added that he had set out what happened to him in his written evidence to this Inquiry.4

1 AM18.7-8; Day 167/32-38; Day 167/73-77

2 Day 167/74; AM18.7

3 AM18.7-8

4 AM18.8

104.405 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Joe Mahon put forward two suggestions as to why the Sunday Times interview notes make no reference to Jim Wray being shot from point blank range as he lay on the ground. He first suggested that the reference in the notes to the soldier looking towards the passageway and firing two or three shots from under his arm 1 might have been intended to convey his evidence about Jim Wray’s death.2 However, later in his oral evidence Joe Mahon said that he had not told the journalists about seeing Jim Wray shot because I was feared for my life ”.3Asked why he was fearful, he said,Well, who was I going to tell. If I had made a statement to the police about it, they are the Security Forces and who killed Jim Wray, who did I see killing Jim Wray while he lay on the ground. It was the Security Forces. 4

1 AM18.15

2 Day 167/36

3 Day 167/68-69

4 Day 167/79-80

104.406 Joe Mahon had been interviewed twice before he talked to the Sunday Times journalists. On 7th February 1972 an RUC officer, Detective Sergeant Cudmore, conducted a brief interview which was concerned with the circumstances in which Joe Mahon was shot and did not touch upon matters relevant to the death of Jim Wray.1 It also appears that the photo-journalist Fulvio Grimaldi talked to Joe Mahon while he was in hospital.2 In the account Fulvio Grimaldi subsequently produced, there is no reference to Joe Mahon seeing Jim Wray shot as they lay on the ground.3

1 AM18.13

2 Day 167/39-42; AM18.25

3 AM18.25

104.407 In our view the Sunday Times interview notes accurately recorded what Joe Mahon told Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobson. We find no force in the suggestion that they had somehow confused the shooting of Jim Wray with three shots by a soldier looking towards the passageway. Indeed, as is noted above, Joe Mahon himself in his evidence seemed later to withdraw from this suggestion.

104.408 Furthermore, we do not accept Joe Mahon’s explanation that he did not tell the Sunday Times journalists about seeing Jim Wray shot in the back while on the ground because he feared for his life. In our view, if Joe Mahon had in fact seen Jim Wray being shot twice in the back at point blank range, as Jim Wray lay wounded on the ground, he would have witnessed a particularly horrific event. His explanation that he said nothing about it because he feared for his life might explain his not volunteering this information to the security forces, but does not explain his failure to say anything to the Sunday Times journalists or to Fulvio Grimaldi, since he did give them detailed accounts of the incident in which he, William McKinney and Jim Wray were all shot as they ran across Glenfada Park.1Had Joe Mahon really witnessed the event he described to us, we are sure that he would have told the Sunday Times and Fulvio Grimaldi about it.

1 AM18.14; AM18.25

104.409 What in our view is likely to have happened is that Joe Mahon, as he lay wounded on the ground, saw a soldier approach the south-west alleyway of Glenfada Park North and he heard that soldier fire his rifle into Abbey Park. This is an event which, for reasons given later in this report,1we are certain occurred. Having later learned that Jim Wray had been shot twice in the back, Joe Mahon mistakenly came to believe that it was this soldier who had shot Jim Wray at point blank range.

1 Chapter 107

104.410 Our view that Joe Mahon was mistaken is to our minds reinforced by the scientific and medical evidence about the photograph reconstructing Joe Mahon’s evidence of what he saw, which is shown above.1

1 Paragraph 104.400

104.411 We accept the view of Dr Shepherd that for Jim Wray to have been shot by a soldier standing in such a position, the body on the ground would have to have been at an angle of 45° to the horizontal, with his left side down and right side up.1Dr Carson gave similar evidence to this Inquiry.2There was no evidence, including from Joe Mahon himself,3that Jim Wray was in this position.

1 Day 230/96-97

2 Day 207/29

3 Day 167/67-68; Day 167/25

104.412 We are thus unable to place any reliance on this aspect of Joe Mahon’s evidence.

104.413 With the exception of Bridget O’Reilly, none of the witnesses who gave accounts in 1972 of Jim Wray being shot while lying on the ground referred to seeing a soldier firing into Jim Wray’s back from a range of just a few feet. Some of the witnesses were in positions that would not have enabled them to see such an incident had it occurred, but others, such as Susan and Betty Coyle, Malachy Coyle and Michael Wilson, would seemingly have been well placed to see the events Joe Mahon described. As for Bridget O’Reilly, she told us that she did not in fact see the soldier aim his gun at Jim Wray.

104.414 We have also considered the evidence of a number of other witnesses who gave accounts in 1972 but did not say then anything about seeing Jim Wray being shot on the ground.1

1 Donal Dunn (AD172.3; Day 161/17-20; AD172.8), Pearse McCaul (AM93.4; AM93.16; AM93.14-15; Day 164/115;
Day 164/33), John O’Kane (AO48.4; AO48.10; X4.31.30-36; Day 163/19-24; AO48.36; AO48.40; AO48.16-17; AO48.6; AO48.33; Day 163/29; AO48.24; Day 163/64), Paddy McCauley (AM97.5; AM97.8-9; Day 162/81-87; Day 162/92-99; Day 162/105-106; Day 162/111; AM97.12), Celine Dunleavy (AD168.2-3; AD168.8-10; Day 132/166-168;
Day 132/187-188; Day 132/193-194; AD168.5), James McNulty (AM377.3; Day 152/16-20; AM377.8; AM377.11; AM377.13-15), John Stevenson (AS33.2; Day 166/6-7), Vincent Harkin (AH34.3; Day 417/149; AH34.1; AH34.9-10), Patrick Moyne (AM444.5; Day 162/27-29; Day 162/40-43; AM444.8) and Frances Lyttle (AL36.3; AL36.6-7).

104.415 Benn Keaveney1and OIRA 72did not give accounts in 1972.

1 AK2.8-10; AK2.20; Day 160/22-42; CS6.389-390

2 AOIRA7.14; AOIRA7.31; Day 398/80-88; Day 398/101-106; Day 398/175-182; Day 399/5-17; FR 7.714-715; FS4.184

104.416 We have come to the conclusion that it would be unwise to place reliance on the evidence of the witnesses we have identified in the previous two paragraphs, in relation to the question as to whether or not Jim Wray was shot while on the ground. As with Joe Mahon, had those witnesses who gave accounts in 1972 really witnessed such an event, it seems to us that they would have been bound to have recounted it at the time. Benn Keaveney acknowledged that in his opinion his memory was affected by trauma, a condition with which he was used to dealing in a professional capacity.1OIRA 7 gave a television interview for a programme made to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, but made no mention of seeing Jim Wray shot on the ground.2We found his explanation for this unconvincing.3

1 AK2.1; AK2.9; AK2.20; Day 160/38

2 X1.28.29; AOIRA7.21; Day 398/16-17

3 Day 398/104-106

104.417 One other witness gave an account that might relate to Jim Wray. James McDonald gave a NICRA statement in which he described seeing a man running in Glenfada Park North, before Another three shots rang out and this man fell. A soldier appeared and ran forward and shot this man at point blank range in the lung. 1The NICRA statement as a whole is vague and clearly confused, and James McDonald gave no evidence to this Inquiry. We do not place any reliance on this account.

1 AM195.1

Further submissions on behalf of soldiers

104.418 The nature of the bullet wounds and the orientation of Jim Wray’s body as he lay on the ground formed the basis of a submission made by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers, that:1

“Ultimately, while James Wray died tragically on Bloody Sunday, the evidence, closely examined, demonstrates that he was not shot either at close or long range while on the lying on [sic] the ground, as, with the possible exception of a shooting by a soldier lying prone on the ground which no civilian witnessed, the angle of bullet entry cannot admit such a possibility if he was lying flat on his front as almost every eyewitness acknowledges. ”

1 FS7.2001

104.419 This submission seems to us to depend upon on a number of propositions, namely that:

1. The expert evidence was that if Jim Wray was lying flat on his front when hit, the firer would either have had to have lowered his weapon to the ground or be lying on the ground when he fired.

2. The civilian evidence was to the effect that Jim Wray was lying flat on his front.

3. There was no evidence that any soldier in Glenfada Park North fired in this manner.

104.420 So far as the first of these propositions is concerned, the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers drew our attention to the following passage from Dr Carson’s oral evidence to this Inquiry:1

“Q. Finally, as far as the upper wound is concerned, we know the entry is upper middle right-hand side of the back and the exit is here. (Indicating)

A. Yes.

Q. If James Wray was actually lying flat, even if he was trying to push himself up but lying flat rather than on one side, if he is lying flat, right?

A. Yes.

Q. The situation would be that the firer of the weapon would be having to lower his weapon to ground level and fire sideways, would he not?

A. Yes, or he could be lying on the ground, of course. ”

1 Day 207/35

104.421 It was submitted that this evidence represents Dr Carson’s view that if the shot was from a distance, the firer would have had to have been shooting from a very low angle, potentially a lying position.1

1 FS7.1950

104.422 Apart from the fact that the question and answer related to only one bullet wound (Wound 1), we do not accept that Dr Carson was expressing a view about a shot from a distance. The context in which these questions and answers are to be found is a discussion of the likelihood of Jim Wray being shot at very close range,1 and in our view what Dr Carson was dealing with was only what in his view the position of the firer would have had to be if Jim Wray had been lying flat on the ground and had sustained Wound 1 from a firer close to him.

1 Day 207/29-35

104.423 As to the second proposition, Malachy Coyle in his NICRA statement described the man (in our view Jim Wray) lying face down on the ground ”.1In his evidence to us he recalled Jim Wray lying with the left side of his body propped up on the pavement and the right side lower down, resting in the gutter.2

1 AC97.20

2 AC97.12; Day 156/33-35

104.424 Bridget O’Reilly, in her oral evidence to this Inquiry, recalled that Jim Wray was kind of lying on his stomach rather than lying on his back.1When asked whether she had seen Jim Wray raise his head and shoulders, she replied that all she had seen at the time she observed the body jerk was his head lifting up.2

1 Day 172/9

2 Day 172/23

104.425 It was submitted that William O’Reilly had changed his account in his written evidence to this Inquiry,1in stating that Jim Wray ‘seemed to be looking around’. This contradicts his earlier evidence to Lord Widgery that James Wray was lying ‘flat and motionless’. 2

1 AO69.1

2 FS7.1971

104.426 In fact William O’Reilly did not use the words flat and motionless ”. They appeared in a question put to him by Mr Gibbens, counsel for the Ministry of Defence:1

“Mr. GIBBENS: In your mind, and this is the object of the answer, isn’t it, in your mind it must have been that while lying on the ground the body jerked because the boy was deliberately shot when he was lying flat and motionless?

A. That is right. ”

1 WT7.5

104.427 A little earlier in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, William O’Reilly had made clear that he had seen Jim Wray looking around:1

“Q. When he was on the ground, after he had fallen, did you see his body move at all at any time?

A. He lifted his head and tried to look round, you know.

LORD WIDGERY: I think you were indicating that he moved his head around?

A. Yes. He was trying to look round.

Mr. HILL: He raised his head from the ground and moved it around, looking about him, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. After that, what else, if anything, did you notice about him?

A. I was going to run down like, to get him up, and the body gave a jerk.

Q. Was that a sudden sort of twitch?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Were you able to see with your own eyes what caused that sudden twitch in Wray’s body?

A. No.

Q. But after this twitch, did he then fall again from the slightly raised position to the ground?

A. His head just went down again.

Q. His head had been raised?

A. Yes, he was moving about his head.

Q. And after the twitch did his head fall to the ground?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he then remain lifeless?

A. I did not see him move after.

Q. You did not see him move at all after that?

A. No.

Q. So after the body twitched his head fell to the ground, and he remained perfectly motionless after that, is that so?

A. Yes. ”

1 WT7.3

104.428 In our view there was nothing inconsistent in William O’Reilly’s evidence on this point. In its context, his answer to Mr Gibbens cannot fairly be understood as a retraction of what he had just said. Had it been thought to be so, Mr Gibbens would undoubtedly have pointed this out, which he did not do.

104.429 As we have already noted, in his written statement to this Inquiry Gerald Campbell recalled seeing a man (in our view clearly Jim Wray) lying face down with his head and shoulders on the pavement, who kept raising his head.1

1 AC13.4

104.430 Asked with regard to Jim Wray When you saw the bullets strike his body, are you sure he was lying on the ground when you saw those bullets st[r]ike? ”, John Porter answered He was lying flat ”.1

1 AP11.12

104.431 In his written evidence to this Inquiry, Michael Wilson described the youth he saw (again in our view Jim Wray) as lying on his stomach with “his body tight against the kerb ”.1

1 AW18.1

104.432 From the accounts of these witnesses it does appear that Jim Wray was lying face down, though raising his head and looking around. Whether he was in the position described by Malachy Coyle decades after the event is much more uncertain, and in the light of the other evidence it seems to us that we should not rely on his recollection in this regard.

104.433 As to the third proposition, it is also the case that there is no evidence, from either a military or a civilian source, that a soldier fired from a prone position or lowered his rifle and fired it from ground level, though it should be noted (as discussed above) that there is both civilian and military evidence that earlier a soldier had fired from a kneeling position.

104.434 As we have already indicated, in our view the civilian evidence, taken with the scientific and medical evidence discussed above, does establish that if Jim Wray was lying flat (as opposed to an angle of about 45° to the ground) he could not have been shot at short range save by a firer at ground level.

104.435 We are not persuaded, however, that it is legitimate to take Dr Carson’s evidence and to extrapolate from it the proposition that if Jim Wray was lying flat and face down a soldier at other than short range would have had to have fired from ground level. There was no scientific evidence to support such an extrapolation.1On the contrary, though he seems only to have been considering the angle at which the bullets entered Jim Wray’s body and their track through his body, Professor Simpson expressed the following view to the Widgery Inquiry:2

“Q. So if Wray was lying on the ground when shot, he must have been shot by someone also lying on the ground?

A. No. He could be shot in the way in which these injuries were sustained by a person kneeling, standing or lying. The angle at which the bullet enters the body, unless it was a very close discharge, bears no relation to their relative position. This was a transverse wound.

Q. Is the track which the bullet takes through the body, unless interrupted by a bone, indicative of the direction from which the shot comes?

A. No. It is a relative matter between the position of the body as to whether it is prone, or half-prone or half-supine: it is not solely a matter of the direction from which the bullet comes.

Q. I do not see quite then how the relative term ‘shot as when standing’ relates to the position of the firer and the position of the victim?

A. I am only putting forward a probability – shot as when standing.

Q. Would it appear to you to be, from the evidence of the wound and the direction, more likely that the person was standing when the bullet entered his body?

A. I do not think I can help in that respect.

Q. In the case of Wray, the track went through from right to left with an inclination upwards at about 15 degrees to the horizontal plane?

A. Yes.

Q. That would still apply if the firer was kneeling and necessarily aiming rather downwards?

A. Yes, or if the body were tilted with the weapon horizontal. ”

1 Although we are not scientific experts, it seems to us that as the distance from a standing firer increases, as a matter of geometry the angle at which Jim Wray’s body would have to be relative to the ground in order to account for Wound 1 would necessarily decrease from the angle required if the shot was from a standing firer at short

range; and would further reduce if the firer was not standing but was kneeling or shooting from a lower position. However, this was not canvassed with the experts.

2 WT9.43

104.436 In our view, therefore, though we are satisfied that Jim Wray was not shot on the ground at point blank range, we find nothing in the medical or scientific evidence that precludes the possibility that he was shot in that position from a greater range.

Whether Jim Wray fell because he was shot

104.437 We have already observed that in our view the 1972 evidence that Jim Wray was shot on the ground indicates that he sustained one wound in this position. A number of other witnesses described seeing Jim Wray fall.

104.438 George Hillen told this Inquiry that as he was at the back of the crowd trying to get through the south-western alleyway of Glenfada Park North he saw Jim Wray to his right, who then said he had been hit and fell forwards.1George Hillen gave no evidence in 1972, and though he was doing his best when he came to give oral evidence to us,2we formed the view from his evidence as a whole that his memory was such that we could not place much reliance on his recollection. However, his account is consistent with Jim Wray falling because he had been shot.

1 AH74.4

2 Day 164/25

104.439 Michael Quinn was, as we have described earlier in this chapter, shot in the face as he ran towards the south-west exit of Glenfada Park North, but he managed to continue through the alleyway and into Abbey Park. He was interviewed by a member of the Sunday Times Insight Team, whose notes included the comment: james wray (who he [Quinn] now recognises from the pix) fell beside him and hit his head of [sic] the kerb of the footpath. ”1

1 AQ11.13

104.440 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Michael Quinn stated that he recalled thinking that someone else has been shot with me because – I guess from the way he fell. He did not put his hand out. I recall his head hitting the kerb stone. ”1He later added: “I did not see a bullet hitting the person, but I could tell from the fact that his head was hitting the kerb stone, his hands were nowhere in view. He did not put his hand out to stop his fall. 2Michael Quinn stated that he did not know at the time who this person was, although he recognised him as someone who had carried the NICRA banner and had been around “the group carrying the body in Glenfada Park North ”.3He subsequently came to think that the man was Jim Wray,4an identification that seems to us to be correct. To our minds this evidence supports the view that Jim Wray fell because he was shot.

1 Day 169/89

2 Day 169/136

3 AQ11.24

4 AQ11.24

104.441 Although other witnesses described seeing Jim Wray fall, we did not find their evidence helpful on the question as to whether or not this was because he had been shot or because he had simply tripped or otherwise lost his balance.

The evidence of Private 027

104.442 Private 027, the Anti-Tank Platoon signaller, gave some evidence that seemingly relates to the circumstances in which Jim Wray came to be shot. Elsewhere in this report1we have described the nature of the accounts he gave before he provided written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.

1 Chapter 179

104.443 In the account he gave in 1975,1Private 027 stated that H fired from the hip at a range of 20 yards. The bullet passed through one man and into another and they both fell, one dead and one wounded. He then moved forward and fired again, killing the wounded man. They lay sprawled together half on the pavement and half in the gutter.

1 B1565.006-007

104.444 Private 027 said to this Inquiry that, as with other aspects of his 1975 account, he had no recollection of the detail described in it, but he also had no reason to doubt that this description of events is what I thought occurred at the time or believed to have occurred at the time .1

1 Day 246/94

104.445 Private 027 told us that he believed that he read his field notebook account of the events of Sector 4 to the journalist Lena Ferguson,1 who took notes as he did so, during the course of an interview for Channel 4 (which took place on 16th March 1997). Lena Ferguson told us that Private 027 did produce his diary, but that it did not play a major part in the conversation.2 However, her interview notes do record a similar incident.3 On the most straightforward interpretation of these notes, Private 027 appeared to suggest that Private G fired into a crowd of 40 and hit two men with one bullet. A third man was then shot, possibly in the leg, by Private H, who then went and finished him off .4

1 Day 249/174

2 Day 202/54-55

3 B1565.273

4 B1565.273; Day 249/173-175

104.446 Private 027 told this Inquiry that he did not believe that he had an independent memory of the events in Glenfada Park when he gave this account to Lena Ferguson.1

1 Day 249/183-184

104.447 We have earlier explained why we consider that Private 027 did not enter Glenfada Park North until after the initial burst of firing. Thus in our view much of his accounts must at best be second hand. We have also observed that whereas in 1975 he stated that it was Private H who had hit two men with one bullet, he seems to have told Lena Ferguson that it was Private G who had done this. In these circumstances, though these two accounts are consistent in identifying Private H who had shot a man on the ground, it seems to us that all that can be said about this evidence is that it is not inconsistent with the civilian evidence that Jim Wray was shot and fell and was then shot again as he lay on the ground. Private 027’s naming of Private H as the soldier responsible for this latter shot is a matter that we return to consider below, though we should say at this stage that we do not regard it, on its own, as a reliable basis for concluding with any certainty that Private H shot Jim Wray on the ground.

Conclusions on the shooting of Jim Wray

104.448 It is clear from the medical and scientific evidence that Jim Wray was shot twice in the back.

104.449 On the basis of the civilian evidence discussed and considered above, we have concluded that Jim Wray probably fell because he was shot once as he was making his way out of Glenfada Park North.

104.450 We have also concluded, on the same basis, that he was probably shot again as he lay on the ground.

104.451 We reject the assertion that Jim Wray was executed by a soldier shooting him at close range while he was on the ground. There was no 1972 evidence to this effect and it seems to us that the accounts given in 1972 are inconsistent with such an assertion. Furthermore, the medical and scientific evidence, which we accept, is to the effect that for such a shooting to have happened, Jim Wray, rather than lying flat on the ground as most of the accounts in 1972 described, would have to have been on his left hand side at an angle of some 45° to the ground.

104.452 We interpret Malachy Coyle’s 1972 account that Jim Wray had been shot again in the back of the left-hand shoulder as he lay on the ground as convincing evidence that he witnessed the effect of the bullet that caused Wound 1 exiting from his body, as there is no doubt from the medical evidence that it did so in this area. This is consistent with the views of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan on the likely cause of the shoring of this exit wound, though not with those of Dr Carson and Dr Di Maio.

104.453 It follows from these conclusions that in our view the shot that caused Jim Wray to fall was the lower of the two shots that hit him, in other words the shot that caused Wound 2. This means in turn that while we accept that the entry hole of a bullet into the lining of Jim Wray’s jacket was caused by the bullet that inflicted Wound 2, we are not persuaded that this is a firm indication that Wound 2 was inflicted when Jim Wray was on the ground. Mr O’Callaghan thought this was the most likely explanation, but described his view as not an immutable opinion, by any means ”.

104.454 From the medical and scientific evidence the experts expressed as the most likely of the possibilities, that the two bullets that struck Jim Wray were fired from the same weapon from the same position and in quick succession, though as they emphasised more than once, this did not preclude other possibilities that might arise from eyewitness evidence.

104.455 That eyewitness evidence persuades us that it is probable that Jim Wray, after he had been shot and had fallen, lay on the ground for long enough to exchange words with people nearby before he was shot again. There is no civilian evidence that helps to decide whether he was shot by the same weapon or from the same position; and only Private 027’s second hand account that the same soldier was responsible for both shots.

Where Jim Wray was taken

104.456 We deal with this aspect of the matter after considering the circumstances of the casualties in Abbey Park, since it was after these casualties had been sustained that Jim Wray was moved from Glenfada Park North.

William McKinney

104.457 William McKinney was shot in the back and fatally wounded by Army gunfire when he was on the south side of Glenfada Park North.

Biographical details and prior movements

104.458 William McKinney, often known as Willie, was 26 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday.1,2 He was engaged to be married, lived in the family home in the Creggan and was a compositor at the Derry Journal newspaper.3On 30th January 1972 he attended the civil rights march with his next-door neighbour, Peter Harrigan.4William McKinney, a keen amateur photographer, took his cine camera with him, as he had done at the Magilligan Strand demonstration the previous week, and we have seen the footage that he filmed on both occasions. William McKinney and Peter Harrigan separated when they moved away from William Street because of the presence of gas in the area.5William McKinney spoke to his brother, George, at the junction of William Street and Rossville Street shortly before soldiers entered the Bogside.6He subsequently made his way to Glenfada Park North.7

1 Day 48/100; D0280

2 There are contemporary documents (D0262; D0264; D0267) that give William McKinney’s age as 27; this may be because he was only three days short of his 27th birthday when he was shot.

3 Day 48/101-105; D262; FS1.2267

4 AH 37.1

5 AH37.1-2

6 AM301.2

7 CS6.505-508; FS1.2267-2269

Where William McKinney was shot

104.459 We have no doubt that William McKinney was shot and fatally wounded in Glenfada Park North. It is convenient to set out again Trevor McBride’s photograph showing where he lay after being shot.

104.460 We should note, however, that there was some evidence that seemed to suggest that William McKinney might have been shot in Abbey Park.

104.461 John Carr in his evidence to the Widgery Inquiry and the later coroner’s inquest said that a man, who he later learned was William McKinney, was shot as he ran to assist Gerard McKinney.1As described later in this report,2Gerard McKinney was shot in Abbey Park. In his evidence to this Inquiry, John Carr agreed that the person he believed to have been shot may just have been diving for cover, and that he might simply have assumed it was William McKinney, because he later saw William McKinney being carried into a house in Abbey Park.3

1 AC42.14; AC42.18; AC42.23-24; AC42.26

2 Chapter 107

3 Day 159/107-115; Day 159/126

104.462 Maureen (also known as Mary) Doherty stated to this Inquiry that from her position in the scullery of 7 Abbey Park she saw William McKinney crawling south along the west side of the western block of Glenfada Park North just before Gerard McKinney and Gerald Donaghey were shot.1Mary Doherty stated that she recognised William McKinney from his work at the Derry Journal and his presence at a dinner dance a while before Bloody Sunday . In her NICRA statement2she did not mention seeing William McKinney, but in her written statement for the Widgery Inquiry she did add, after describing shooting in Abbey Park, that before this shooting she saw the young McKinney creeping along at the Glenfada Flats. “He appeared to be injured but I did not see him being shot. 3In our view Mary Doherty was mistaken in thinking that she saw William McKinney.

1 AD85.2-3; Day 161/93-95; Day 161/111-113

2 AD85.9

3 AD85.11

104.463 James McLaughlin gave a NICRA statement in which he recorded that A man running beside me who I later learned was William McKinney was shot. 1This statement does not make clear where he was saying that this incident occurred, though on one reading he could have been referring to Abbey Park. In an account given to Peter Pringle of the Sunday Times Insight Team, James McLaughlin described being in Abbey Park and helping to carry William McKinney into 7 Abbey Park, but said nothing about being beside William McKinney when this casualty was shot.2In his written statement to this Inquiry, James McLaughlin told us that he was now not sure precisely where the running man fell or whether the running man had stumbled or had been shot. He also told this Inquiry that William McKinney might not have been the person he saw fall.3

1 AM463.8

2 AM463.9

3 AM463.2-4

104.464 Joe Mahon (who is also shown in Trevor McBride’s photograph of the three lying in Glenfada Park North1) has throughout maintained that William McKinney fell in Glenfada Park North just to his right.2As we describe later in this part of the report there are photographs that show William McKinney’s body being carried into Abbey Park from Glenfada Park North through the south-west alleyway. There is also evidence of the earlier presence of William McKinney at the south gable end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, to which we refer below. In our view the witnesses who said or implied that William McKinney was shot elsewhere are mistaken, possibly because they confused William McKinney with Gerard McKinney, who (as we describe later3) was shot in Abbey Park, or because William McKinney was carried into Abbey Park after he was shot.

1 Paragraph 104.206

2 AM18.3; AM18.15

3 Chapter 107

Medical and scientific evidence

104.465 Dr Carson performed an autopsy on the body of William McKinney at Altnagelvin Hospital on 31st January 1972. The autopsy was observed by Dr Raymond McClean, Dr MacDermott and Dr Cavanagh.1

1 D0280

104.466 The autopsy revealed two entry and two exit wounds. The fatal injuries were caused by a bullet that entered the right side of William McKinney’s back, traversed his upper abdomen and exited on the left side of his lower chest.1 A bullet had also passed through his left forearm from the palm side to the back.2Dr Carson’s conclusion on the autopsy was that a single bullet was responsible for all the injuries.3

1 D0280-0281; D0285; E2.0043

2 D0282; D0285; E2.0043

3 D285

104.467 We have had the opportunity to examine the photographs that were taken of William McKinney during the autopsy. We have decided, after consulting with the families of the deceased, not to publish them.

104.468 The Trunk Wound: The entry wound (0.5cm circular) was on the right side of the back 13cm from the midline and 9cm below the scapula. The corresponding exit wound (2cm x 1.6cm) lay on the left side of the chest 8cm below and 10cm to the left of the left nipple. There were substantial internal injuries to William McKinney’s ribs, right lung, liver, stomach, colon and spleen.1Assuming the body was in the Normal Anatomical Position, a concept used by pathologists to describe wounds on the basis that the casualty was standing vertically with hands by the sides,2the track was described in the 1972 notes, reports and opinions as being from back to front at 33° from right to left and horizontal.3Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan concluded that the bullet entered the right side of William McKinney’s back and passed through the left side of his lower chest, causing the body wounds and internal injuries.4There was a disagreement between Dr Carson and Dr McClean, who observed the autopsy, over whether the track was horizontal or whether, as Dr McClean suggested, there was a 5° upward angle.5Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan considered that the difference was well within the possible error for these measurements and can therefore be disregarded 6and Dr Carson in his evidence to this Inquiry referred to the difference as being insignificant.7We accept their opinions on this point.

1 D0281; D0285; D0291-293

2 Day 229/103

3 D0281; D0291-293; E2.0042; D292

4 E2.0042-43

5 D0535-536; AM105.38-39

6 E2.0042-43

7 D0535-536

104.469 In his autopsy opinion Dr Carson stated that the internal gunshot wounds to William McKinney’s torso were associated with bleeding into the chest and abdominal cavities and death, which would probably have been rapid but not instantaneous, was due to their combined effects ”.1

1 D0285

104.470 The Arm Wound: The entry wound to William McKinney’s forearm was described in the autopsy report as an irregular elliptical wound, 15mm. x 10 mm. on the flexor surface (ie the palm side). It lay 70mm above the wrist. The exit wound was a gaping elliptical wound ”, 80mm long by 30mm wide, with the lower end 25mm above the wrist.1

1 D0282; E2.0043

104.471 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan produced a diagram showing the position of the wounds.1 That diagram is reproduced below.

1 E2.75

104.472 Dr Carson agreed with Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan that the wound on the palm side of the forearm was an entrance wound, and that its atypical appearance – being larger and more irregular than a clean or simple entrance wound – suggested that the bullet that struck William McKinney’s arm was unstable or damaged by the time that it did so.1 The experts had different views as to the cause of the damage or instability, and their evidence on this point is accurately described in our Counsel’s summation, which we set out below:

4. There is some disagreement between Dr Carson on the one hand, and Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan on the other, regarding the nature of the injuries to Mr McKinney’s arm. Dr Carson believed that these were likely to have been caused by the same bullet that had earlier passed through his body (and thus represented a re-entry and an exit wound).2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan thought that this explanation was only of equal likelihood with the possibility that he was hit by a second unstable or damaged bullet.3

(a) Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan explained that the fact that the entry wound in Mr McKinney’s arm was considerably smaller than the exit wound to his chest did not preclude the possibility that the same bullet was responsible. They commented that fragments of rib might have distorted the chest wound, while Dr Carson also referred to the possibility that the phenomenon of ‘temporary cavitation’ (the expansion of tissue around a wound in the immediate aftermath of the bullet passing though) could have caused the same effect.4

(b) Dr Carson explained to this Inquiry that he did not rule out the possibility that the arm was struck by a second bullet, but he believed that it was simpler to explain the injuries by the single-bullet theory, and hence it was ‘more likely’ that this was correct.5

(c) Dr Martin’s contemporary notes referred to the damage to the sleeve of Mr McKinney’s coat as being consistent with the re-entry and re-exit of the same bullet that had passed through his torso.6 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan concluded that there was no accompanying description or explanation in the extant notes to suggest why he came to that conclusion. 7

1 Day 206/37-38; E2.0043

2 D285; Day 206/23-37; D536; D537.1

3 E2.43-E2.45; Day 229/33-36

4 E2.43; Day 229/35; Day 206/31

5 Day 206/37

6 D276; D272-D275

7 E2.44

104.473 We accept the evidence of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan on this topic. We therefore consider that it is not possible on the medical evidence alone to determine whether it was more likely that William McKinney was struck by one bullet than by two. There is no civilian evidence that assists on this question.

104.474 Dr Martin conducted tests for the presence of lead particles on William McKinney’s clothing and hands. He interpreted his findings as a negative result, and therefore concluded that William McKinney had not been using a firearm.1 William McKinney’s clothing was also tested for the presence of explosive residues, but none was found; no swabs were received by DIFS to allow similar tests to be conducted in relation to his hands.2 There is therefore no scientific evidence to suggest that William McKinney had discharged a firearm or handled explosives at any stage on Bloody Sunday.

1 D269-271

2 D265-266

When William McKinney was shot

104.475 We have no doubt that William McKinney was shot as he went from the southern end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North towards the south-west alleyway into Abbey Park. Shortly before he was shot he had been standing among the crowd round the body of Michael Kelly, and was identified by John James McLaughlin1and John Kelly2from the photograph of this scene, as shown below. There is nothing to indicate that he went elsewhere before he started to go across the south of Glenfada Park North.

1 AM339.5; AM339.7

2 AK13.4; AK13.14

What William McKinney was doing when he was shot

104.476 There is no evidence and no-one has suggested that William McKinney was in possession of any form of weapon. However, it appears to be suggested by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers that William McKinney may not have been attempting to flee, but was rather standing his ground when soldiers came into Glenfada Park North; and that his possession of both a cine camera and an ordinary camera might, with sudden movement with such a piece of photographic equipment be mistaken for some kind of aggressive, armed behaviour.1

1 FS7.1910; FR7.750

104.477 We do not accept this. William McKinney did have his cine camera with him, though not his ordinary camera,1 and did on occasion take risks to get pictures.2 The short distance between William McKinney and the soldiers in Glenfada Park North in our view makes it highly unlikely that anyone at that distance could mistake a cine camera for a firearm. There is no evidence to suggest that as he made his way across Glenfada Park North, he behaved in such a way as could lead anyone to believe that he was armed and posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. The fact that he was shot in the back is to our minds inconsistent with any such suggestion.

1 Day 176/150; AD13.2

2 AM301.5

104.478 We deal later in this report1 with the question of who shot William McKinney.

1 Chapter 112

Where William McKinney was taken after he was shot

104.479 We deal later in this report1 with this aspect of the matter.

1 Chapter 108

Joe Mahon

104.480 Joe Mahon was shot by Army gunfire at the top of his right thigh, when he was on the southern side of Glenfada Park North.

Biographical details and prior movements

104.481 Joseph Mahon, commonly known as Joe, was 16 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He was single and lived with his family in the Creggan, had left school in January 1972 and was due to begin an apprenticeship as a joiner.1 He took part in the civil rights march at Bishop’s Field on 30th January 1972 and subsequently made his way to Glenfada Park North.2There he was shot and seriously wounded.3

1 AM18.1; Day 48/97-98; FS1.2277

2 AM18.1; AM18.14

3 When interviewed by Detective Sergeant Cudmore while in hospital, Joe Mahon said that he had been visiting the house of a relative at the time when he was shot (AM18.13). We have drawn no adverse inferences from Joe Mahon’s refusal to tell Detective Sergeant Cudmore the truth, as it is understandable that he would not wish to admit that he had been on the march.

104.482 Joe Mahon spent a month in hospital and as a result lost his apprenticeship.1He described the effect of the injury he sustained on his life in the following terms:2

“I have never fully recovered from the wound I received that day. I have to have regular check ups and the damage to my intestines means I have to be careful about what I eat and drink. I am unable to drink strong spirits. I regularly get pain and cramp in my hips and suffer frequent bowel infections and some numbness in my leg. Before Bloody Sunday I was a very keen sportsman and played Gaelic football. I played football once for Derry Minors and had been captain of the school hurley team. After Bloody Sunday I did not dare take up these sports again because I did not believe that my hips were up to it. Whilst I was in hospital I had been told that I would suffer severe arthritis and would be in a wheelchair by the time I was 45. Mentally, my outlook on life changed. I became more withdrawn and introverted. ”

1 D0819; AM18.6-7; AM18.78

2 AM18.7

Medical and scientific evidence

104.483 Joe Mahon was shot above his right hip by a bullet that penetrated into his abdomen and was recovered from the left anterior superior iliac region (ie the front left side of the pelvis).1He suffered multiple perforations of the bowel,2and the serious and potentially fatal nature of his condition is demonstrated by a letter written by consultant surgeon Mr HM Bennett to Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan on 10th February 1972:3

“The bullet was a high velocity one and such missiles when they penetrate abdominal viscera carry a notoriously bad prognosis. I am not therefore prepared at this moment to state the possible outlook for this patient and he may well have a very stormy period if indeed he survives at all. ”

1 D809-824; E10.09-10

2 E10.10; D0824

3 D0824

104.484 Dr Martin, in his letter to the RUC dated 4th April 1972, described the round that was found in Joe Mahon’s body as being a badly damaged 7.62 calibre rifle bullet ”.1He stated that he was unable to match the bullet with any of the 29 rifles that the Army had supplied to him, but nor could he exclude the possibility that it was fired from one of those weapons.2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan concluded in a report to this Inquiry that The damage to the bullet is unlikely to have been caused during its passage through the clothing or the body. It is most likely that this bullet has struck an intermediate object prior to hitting Joseph Mahon.3 We accept this conclusion.

1 D0827

2 D0826-829

3 E10.10

Whether Joe Mahon was hit by a bullet that had hit William McKinney

104.485 The intermediate object to which Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan referred was, in our view, probably the body of William McKinney, since the latter (as can be seen in the photograph of the three bodies in Glenfada Park North1) fell close to Joe Mahon. In addition, it should be noted that in his 1975 account Private 027 described two men being struck by one bullet fired by Private H.2However, in this account Private 027 said that Private H had fired from the hip and then had gone forward and shot again, killing the wounded man. According to the notes made by the journalist Lena Ferguson, Private 027 told her that it was Private G who had fired into a crowd and hit two men with one bullet, after which Private H shot another man and then went and finished him off ”.3Since in our view Private 027 did not enter Glenfada Park North until after the initial burst of firing, at best his account of this incident and his inconsistent accounts of who was responsible must be based on what he was told afterwards. We return to consider Private 027’s account later in this report,4when discussing the question of which soldier shot William McKinney.

1 Paragraph 104.208

2 B1565.6-B1565.7

3 B1565.273; Day 249/173-175

4 Chapter 112

104.486 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Lance Corporal F was asked about the possibility that he might have shot both Joe Mahon and William McKinney with the same bullet and he agreed that this was possible.1However, in view of his professed lack of memory of events and the generally unsatisfactory nature of his evidence, we consider that this answer is of little if any assistance.

1 Day 376/171-175

104.487 There is no other evidence that assists in determining whether Joe Mahon was hit by a bullet that had previously struck William McKinney. The only other possibility is that the bullet first hit the ground, as there does not appear to be anything else (apart from William McKinney’s body) that it could have struck before hitting Joe Mahon. Despite the fact that Private 027’s evidence is second hand, it does in our view point, though far from conclusively, to Joe Mahon being hit by a bullet that had struck William McKinney. We are of the view that Joe Mahon was probably shot by a bullet that had first hit William McKinney.

Where Joe Mahon was when he was shot

104.488 As noted when discussing the circumstances in which Jim Wray came to be shot earlier in this chapter, we have rejected the account given by Joe Mahon of seeing, as he lay on the ground, a soldier shoot Jim Wray at point blank range. However, there is an account contained in a memorandum prepared by the Sunday Times Insight Team, according to which Joe Mahon told the journalists that he was running along the fencing on the south side of Glenfada Park North, thought he saw two others hit in front of him and then I was hit in the thingh [sic]. at first i thought it was a rubber bullet. i assumed the shot had come from the soldier i had seen enter the alley from rossville street in the northeast corner of the car park. he had come up behind a van and pointed a rifle in my direction. 1

1 AM18.14; AM18.20

104.489 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Joe Mahon said that much of what was contained in the Sunday Times notes of the interview was inaccurate.1In particular he told this Inquiry that he had not seen a soldier in the north-east corner of Glenfada Park North but rather a number of soldiers, one of whom wore a distinctive jacket and was firing from the hip in a fan motion.2We take the view that the Sunday Times notes did record what Joe Mahon told the journalists at the time; and that had he in fact seen a soldier behaving in this manner he would have told the journalists. The same applies to the interview conducted by Fulvio Grimaldi to which we have already made reference.3In this interview Fulvio Grimaldi recorded Joe Mahon saying that he was walking when shot.

1 AM18.8

2 AM18.3; Day 167/18-21

3 AM18.25

104.490 The Sunday Times map relating to Joe Mahon marked him as falling well to the east of centre on the southern edge of Glenfada Park North.1This map, and Joe Mahon’s other Sunday Times evidence, indicated that there were two other bodies to the west.2However, on the basis that Joe Mahon was hit by a bullet that had struck William McKinney, which we consider was probably the case, this map shows Joe Mahon further to the east than the point at which we believe he fell. That he fell closer to William McKinney seems to us to be supported by what is seen in Trevor McBride’s photograph of the bodies in Glenfada Park North, which we have reproduced above.3

1 AM18.8

2 AM18.18; AM18.14; AM18.20

3 Paragraph 104.206

What Joe Mahon was doing when he was shot

104.491 We return to the evidence of Joe Mahon when considering what happened subsequently in Glenfada Park North and Abbey Park. At this stage, however, we should state that we have found no evidence to suggest that he was behaving in a way that could lead anyone to believe, albeit mistakenly, that he was a posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. He was running (or possibly walking) away from the soldiers when he was shot.

104.492 We deal later in this report1 with the question of who shot Joe Mahon.

1 Chapter 112

Where Joe Mahon was taken after he was shot

104.493 We deal with this aspect of the matter later in this report.1

1 Chapter 108

Patrick O’Donnell

104.494 Patrick O’Donnell was shot in the shoulder by Army gunfire as he sheltered behind a fence on the east side of Glenfada Park North.

Biographical details and prior movements

104.495 Patrick O’Donnell, commonly known as Patsy, was 41 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He was married with six children, lived in Rathowen Park, Londonderry and was employed as a roofing contractor.1On 30th January 1972 he joined the civil rights march with some friends, and subsequently made his way to Glenfada Park North,2where he was wounded.

1 AO35.1; AO35.12; Day 48/146; FS1.2298

2 AO35.1

Medical and scientific evidence

104.496 Patrick O’Donnell sustained what was described in his discharge letter as a through and through bullet wound to his right shoulder.1 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan reviewed the 1972 notes relating to Patrick O’Donnell’s injury and commented that A number of metallic fragments were noted on X-Ray but only one appears to have been found at operation; this fragment was submitted to DIFS [Department of Industrial and Forensic Science]. Dr Martin identified that fragment as being a piece of lead ‘which could be part of a bullet. ’2No comment can be made concerning the nature of the projectile.”3

1 D899

2 D906

3 E10.10; D889-D902.1; D903-D907

104.497 Patrick O’Donnell also received an injury to his scalp later in the day. This wound and the circumstances in which it was sustained are discussed later in this report.1

1 Chapter 114

104.498 Patrick O’Donnell was treated at Altnagelvin Hospital and was discharged on 9th February 1972.1As a result of his injuries he was unable to return to his work for a period of six to eight months.2

1 D0902.1

2 Day 48/150

Accounts given by Patrick O’Donnell

104.499 Patrick O’Donnell gave a number of accounts in 1972:

a) An interview with Detective Constable FJR Gillanders. According to the resulting statement and an associated police note, the main interviews were conducted on 3rd and 4th February 1972 at Altnagelvin Hospital, and Patrick O’Donnell provided additional information and signed the document in the presence of his solicitor on 11th February 1972.1

b) A NICRA statement dated 7th February 1972.2

c) Written and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.3

d) An interview with the Sunday Times journalists, Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobson, the notes of which are dated 6th March 1972.4

1 ED61.4-5; AO35.9

2 AO35.7-AO35.8

3 AO35.18-AO35.19; WT6.41-46

4 AO35.20-25

104.500 Patrick O’Donnell also gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.1

1 AO35.1-AO35.6; AO35.10-AO35.11; AO35.26; Day 156/110-134; Day 157/1-28

104.501 Patrick O’Donnell was quoted in at least two newspapers in 1972, describing the incident in which he was shot.1 In his evidence to this Inquiry, he accepted that these accounts were colourful ”.2

1 L136; L144; Day 157/10-12

2 Day 157/12

104.502 In his interview with Detective Constable Gillanders,1 Patrick O’Donnell stated that he had heard that two people had been shot and taken to a house in Columbcille Court. When he got there he was not allowed in and after talking to people about what had happened he decided to go to Free Derry Corner. According to this account, he went through Columbcille Court and then Glenfada Park North. Before he reached the exit into Rossville Street he heard shots that sounded different from rubber bullets. He and everyone else started to run towards Free Derry Corner, but as he came round the corner of Glenfada Park he saw two civilians obviously injured lying a few yards back from the rubble barricade. The shots continued and there were a number of people sheltering at the gable end. He decided to run back across Glenfada Park North. He then continued:

“As I started to run I saw somebody falling some distance in front of me across the Park. There were other ones running as well as me. As I ran along I could still hear shooting. I stopped for a second and across Glenfada Park in the direction of Columbcille Court and about 30 or 40 yards from me I saw a soldier with a rifle in his hands. He appeared to be aiming in the direction of where I stood. There was a woman just in front of me and we both dived down behind a wooden fence and I kept the woman pushed down as far as possible. I heard a crack and felt pieces of cement of the wall behind me hit me around the shoulders. I looked round and saw the right shoulder of my coat was torn and I also saw a mark on the wall just above my shoulder. I felt a pain in my right shoulder, like burning. The tear in my coat also looked burnt. The woman and I rolled round to the shelter of the gable of the flats. ”

1 ED61.4

104.503 Patrick O’Donnell then described what happened to him subsequently, to which we return later in this report.1

1 Chapter 114

104.504 Patrick O’Donnell gave a similar account in his NICRA statement, although he mentioned in this that he had seen more than one soldier in Glenfada Park North.1

1 AO35.7-8

104.505 The Sunday Times interview notes1also contain a similar account, with Patrick O’Donnell again recorded as referring to the presence of soldiers rather than a soldier in Glenfada Park North.2Patrick O’Donnell described taking cover by the side of a wooden fence that juts slightly out into the park and almost sitting on top of an elderly woman in a fur coat ”.3According to this account, he said that the fence provided hardly any cover and that the next thing i knew there was a sharp crack and a bullet hit the wall beside me and sprayed me with chiipings from the brick. another bullet smacked into the wooden fence. i didnt realise immediately that i had been hit. 4This appears to be the only time that Patrick O’Donnell was recorded as saying that a second bullet had struck close to him.

1 AO35.20-21

2 AO35.20

3 AO35.20

4 AO35.20

104.506 Patrick O’Donnell’s evidence to the Widgery Inquiry was broadly consistent with his earlier statements.1 He told that Inquiry that he could remember seeing two soldiers in Glenfada Park North,2 and that they were about 30 or 40 yards away.3 It is not possible to ascertain from the transcript precisely where Patrick O’Donnell said that the soldiers were positioned, although one was at about the centre 4 and the other appears to have been in the north or north-by-west segment of the car park.5 Patrick O’Donnell recalled that one of the soldiers had his rifle levelled, but level with his chest, not to his shoulder ”.6 However, while he took it that he was shot by one of the soldiers that he had seen,7 he said that he could not really say what soldier fired the shot ”.8

1 AO35.18; WT6.41-46

2 WT6.46

3 WT6.44

4 WT6.42

5 WT6.46

6 AO35.18

7 WT6.46; WT6.42

8 WT6.44

104.507 Patrick O’Donnell also told the Widgery Inquiry that at the moment he was shot he was pretty low down , crouched on top of the woman with whom he had taken cover behind the fence.1 He thought that the bullet that struck him also hit the wall behind him at his shoulder level,2 but he did not know whether or not he was hit by a ricochet.3 He stated that he had not been carrying a gun or a weapon of any sort.4

1 WT6.46

2 WT6.44; WT6.41

3 WT6.46

4 WT6.44

104.508 In his written evidence to this Inquiry,1 Patrick O’Donnell identified where he had taken shelter, and where he had seen the soldiers in Glenfada Park North.2 These positions are identified on the following photograph and map.

1 AO35.1-AO35.6; AO35.10-AO35.11; AO35.26

2 AO35.2; AO35.6

104.509 Patrick O’Donnell’s evidence to this Inquiry was consistent with his 1972 accounts. He recalled that as he was thinking of running from the gable end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North towards Abbey Park he saw three or four lads running in the same direction. One of these stumbled and fell at the corner of the exit, and Patrick O’Donnell, who by that time had taken a couple of steps away from the gable end, turned back.1 He took cover in the position marked above, crouched on top of a woman, who he subsequently learned was called Winifred O’Brien, and another man.2

1 Day 156/113-115; AO35.2

2 Day 156/115; AO35.2

104.510 In relation to the shot that injured him, Patrick O’Donnell marked on the photograph below the approximate position that the bullet struck the wall behind him.1

1 AO35.37; Day 156/131-133

104.511 He told this Inquiry that he thought that it was possible that he had been hit by bullet fragments that had ricocheted off the wall.1 However, he stated that he had no recollection of a second round hitting the fence despite being reminded of what was recorded in the Sunday Times notes.2

1 Day 156/118

2 Day 156/125

Accounts of other witnesses

104.512 Winifred O’Brien, who was 44 years old at the time, gave a Keville interview and spoke to the Sunday Times in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday. In the former, she simply stated that They shot a fella in an arm while we was under cover ”.1 However, in a longer account to the Sunday Times she recalled that after she heard shooting she knelt down by a wooden fence.2 She was comforted by a man of 17 or 18, but then heard people shouting that the Paras were coming in.3 She continued:4

“Next thing, an older heavier built man came up and he sort of threw himself on top of me to protect me behind the fence. I cant remember how it happened but he suddenly said he was hit in the right shoulder. he was going to put his own hankie on the wound but i’d a brand new one, never been used, with me and i said here, take this one, it will be cleaner. i opened his coat and put the folded hankie inside his shirt against the wound. there was quite a lot of blood and i got some on both hands.

the next thing was 5 or 6 paras rushing up and lifting everybody there. the young boy, the first one who helped me, was knocked around very rough and they were also shoving the man hit in the shoulder. ”

1 AO4.5; AO4.1

2 AO4.2

3 AO4.2

4 AO4.3

104.513 Winifred O’Brien’s account is consistent with those given by Patrick O’Donnell and in our view both of these witnesses are correct in their recollections. It has not been possible to identify the other man with whom they took cover.

104.514 Robert Devine gave this Inquiry a written statement in which he recorded that on the evening of Bloody Sunday he visited Patrick O’Donnell in Altnagelvin Hospital. Robert Devine recalled that Patrick O’Donnell told him that he had been hit by a bullet ricocheting off the wall and that he had seen the soldier who had shot him.1This contrasts with Patrick O’Donnell’s later evidence, in which he explained that he only assumed that a soldier whom he had seen was responsible for shooting him. In our view Patrick O’Donnell’s later evidence was the more reliable.

1 AD42.4

Where and when Patrick O’Donnell was shot

104.515 We have no doubt that Patrick O’Donnell was shot by one of the soldiers in Glenfada Park North. We are not certain that he suffered this wound from a ricochet of a bullet hitting the wall. Though fragments were found in Patrick O’Donnell’s shoulder, one of which Dr Martin identified as a bullet fragment, it is possible either that the bullet first went through the wooden fence, broke up as it did so and then hit him, or that the bullet fragmented on hitting the wall.

104.516 We accept Patrick O’Donnell’s evidence of how he came by this bullet injury. Some details in his various accounts vary, but we are sure that throughout he was doing his best to give an honest recollection of events.

104.517 On the basis of this evidence we have concluded that Patrick O’Donnell decided to run towards Abbey Park because people were shouting and he had seen people lying at the rubble barricade. He saw somebody falling some distance in front of him. This caused him to turn back and take cover as he described. He was shot after he had done so.

104.518 Although Patrick O’Donnell only mentioned a second bullet once and afterwards could not remember, it is noteworthy that Peter Pringle (one of the journalists who interviewed him for the Sunday Times) recorded that he himself saw the hole in the brick wall and also the splintered wood of the fence during the first week following BS [Bloody Sunday] .1This might be an indication that Peter Pringle saw evidence of two bullets and thus that Patrick O’Donnell may have been correct when he told the Sunday Times that a second bullet struck the fence behind which he was sheltering.

1 AO35.23

What Patrick O’Donnell was doing when he was shot

104.519 There is nothing to suggest, and no-one has suggested, that Patrick O’Donnell was armed with any sort of weapon. We are sure that he was not and that he was doing nothing that could have led anyone to believe, albeit mistakenly, that he was a posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. He was simply trying to take cover.

104.520 We return later in this report1to the question as to whether or not it is possible to identify the soldier whose fire injured Patrick O’Donnell. At this stage it is to be noted that none of the soldiers admitted firing at a fence or at a person crouched behind a fence at the south-west end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North.

1 Chapter 112

What happened to Patrick O’Donnell

104.521 Patrick O’Donnell was one of those later arrested at the southern gable end of the western block of Glenfada Park North. We deal with these arrests and what happened to Patrick O’Donnell later in this report.1

1 Chapters 113 and 114

Summary of the initial shooting in Glenfada Park North

104.522 In the light of the evidence we have considered, we have concluded that, with the exception of the injury caused by the second shot to hit Jim Wray, the gunshot injuries suffered by the following individuals were sustained as the result of the initial burst of firing by the soldiers who had come into Glenfada Park North. Michael Quinn, Joe Friel and Jim Wray were shot when close to the south-west alleyway leading into Abbey Park, within a very short time of each other. William McKinney and Joe Mahon were shot further to the east, in our view probably just after Michael Quinn, Joe Friel and Jim Wray. Patrick O’Donnell was probably shot slightly later, as his 1972 evidence (which we accept) was that he turned back from running to the south-west exit of Glenfada Park North after seeing someone fall in front of him. As to Daniel Gillespie, we remain in doubt as to where and how he sustained his injury, though it is possible that he was also hit by a bullet, a ricochet or a splinter of brick during this initial burst of firing.

104.523 We are satisfied that none of those shot in Glenfada Park North was armed or doing anything that could have led anyone to believe that any of them was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. There was no evidence from any source that any warning was given before soldiers opened fire, though Corporal E said that he had shouted “drop it” before he fired.

104.524 We now turn to consider what happened after the shooting of the casualties considered above, though we should point out that it is not wholly clear whether any of the movements of the soldiers we now turn to describe took place before or after the shot that in our view hit Jim Wray as he lay on the ground.