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 External links, forms and search may not work in archived websites and contact details are likely to be out of date.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

Skip to Content | Accessibility Statement | Site Map

Report of the The Bloody Sunday Inquiry
- Volume VI - Chapter 111



Paramilitary activity in Sector 4

Chapter 111: Paramilitary activity in Sector 4

Contents

Paragraph

Whether Glenfada Park North was a “habitual haven of paramilitary activity” 111.2

Civilian evidence 111.3

Evidence of republican paramilitaries storing weapons in Glenfada Park North 111.8

Consideration of the submissions 111.11

The gunman or gunmen seen on Rossville Street 111.16

Evidence given to journalists of a man with a handgun firing in Glenfada
Park North 111.18

The question of photographic evidence indicating paramilitary activity in the
north-east corner of Glenfada Park North 111.36

Michael Kivelehan 111.42

Michael Quinn 111.66

Danny Craig 111.76

Charles McGill 111.82

Benn Keaveney 111.118

Noel McCartney 111.129

John Leo Clifford and Kevin Clifford 111.143

Allegations of weapons in a vehicle or vehicles in Glenfada Park North 111.156

Evidence of members of the Official IRA 111.156

Civilian, photographic and film footage evidence 111.175

Anthony Martin 111.199

Paul Mahon 111.209

Other evidence 111.220

Barry Liddy 111.220

Witness X 111.222

Conclusions on paramilitary activity in Glenfada Park North 111.237

111.1 In this chapter we consider evidence and submissions relating to paramilitary activity in the area of Sector 4. Elsewhere in this report1 we discuss paramilitary organisations and activities generally.

1 Chapters 146–154

Whether Glenfada Park North was a “habitual haven of paramilitary activity

111.2 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers submitted that there was considerable evidence that Glenfada Park North was a habitual haven of paramilitary activity and a regular sanctuary for rioters and armed individuals. Such evidence has emerged entirely separately from the soldiers’ accounts of observing just such activity in the area. 1 In support of this submission, these representatives relied on the evidence of a number of civilian witnesses, and other material that suggested that republican paramilitaries used Glenfada Park North as a place in which to store weapons.2 We discuss these matters below.

1 FS7.2008

2 FS7.2008-2014

Civilian evidence

111.3 William Barrett lived in Glenfada Park South at the time of Bloody Sunday and for a number of years afterwards. He told us that a man with a machine gun had fired on a number of different occasions (he could not remember when) from inside Glenfada Park North towards an Army Observation Post on top of the Embassy Ballroom building.1

1 AB110.3; Day 198/063-067; Day 198/95

111.4 Raymond Rogan, the Chairman of the Abbey Park Tenants Association, gave the following evidence to the Widgery Inquiry:1

“Q. And [you] have lived in Abbey Park for some years?

A. Almost two years.

Q. And you also, I suppose, can speak with close knowledge of previous incidents that happened in the way of rioting in that area?

A. That is correct.

Q. That William Street and the top of Rossville Street are the scene of daily riots in the afternoons?

A. There are disturbances there, yes.

Q. Can you tell my Lord this: is it not right that frequently rifle fire or IRA fire comes from Glenfada Park Flats?

A. That I couldn’t say with a great degree of certainty who actually does the firing.

Q. But firing does come from that area against the troops, doesn’t it?

A. It is common knowledge. ”

1 WT6.2

111.5 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Raymond Rogan agreed that he had, in his answers in the passage quoted above, accepted that before Bloody Sunday it was common knowledge that fire directed against the troops came on occasion from the Glenfada Park flats.1

1 Day 184/007-008

111.6 Paddy McCauley told us that from his experience of participating in riots and witnessing gun battles, the north-east corner of Glenfada Park North was the safest place to be in the Bogside. He explained that this was because you cannot be seen from the Embassy buildings, you cannot be seen from the Derry Walls and the army will not come in that far ”.1 At the time of Bloody Sunday, the Army had Observation Posts on both the Embassy Ballroom building and the City Walls. Paddy McCauley accepted the suggestion put to him by counsel that hardline rioters and people carrying weapons of any kind ” would consider Glenfada Park North as the obvious place to run to as being somewhere that was reasonably safe where you could not be seen .2

1 Day 162/106-107; AM97.1

2 Day 162/106-107

111.7 Joe Mahon also told us that Glenfada Park North was a safe area, but he said this was because soldiers had never come that far into the Bogside before, rather than because Glenfada Park North was not overlooked.1

1 Day 167/050

Evidence of republican paramilitaries storing weapons in Glenfada Park North

111.8 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers put forward several pieces of evidence to suggest that both the Provisional and the Official IRA had, on occasions, positioned cars with weapons in Glenfada Park.1 In relation to the Provisional IRA, these representatives cited the evidence to this Inquiry of the researcher Paul Mahon, who said that in the late 1990s he interviewed Gerard “Mad Dog ” Doherty, a member of the Provisional IRA at the time of Bloody Sunday.2 In the notes that Paul Mahon made of this interview, he recorded being told that: The IRA often would use a car positioned in Glenfada Park as an arms dump. 3 Paul Mahon stated that the interview had also been recorded on video tape and sound tape, but both of these tapes had gone missing.4 Gerard Doherty, who told this Inquiry that he had been a member of the Provisional IRA and was nicknamed “Mad Dog ”,5 said that he had no recollection of being interviewed by Paul Mahon.6 He also stated, while being asked about different issues unrelated to the alleged interview, that he did not know where the Provisional IRA Quartermaster used to store weapons.7 With regard to Bloody Sunday itself, Gerard Doherty said that he was not aware of the presence of a car or cars containing weapons in Glenfada Park North.8

1 FS7.2012-2013

2 AM19.4; AM19.24; Day 413/85-86

3 Day 412/196-197; AM19.232

4 AM19.24; Day 411/139

5 AD65.19; AD65.25

6 Day 400/177-184

7 AD65.23; Day 400/26; Day 400/133

8 Day 400/71

111.9 In our view Gerard Doherty was interviewed by Paul Mahon and did make the remarks noted by Paul Mahon. Whether Gerard Doherty was referring to the Provisional IRA or the Official IRA remains uncertain, but we are of the view that it is likely that republican paramilitaries did often use a car in Glenfada Park North in which to dump or store weapons.

111.10 With regard to the Official IRA’s use of Glenfada Park North as an area in which to store weapons, the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers referred to the evidence of OIRA 1, OIRA 2 and OIRA 7.1 These men told us that after OIRA 1 had fired a .303 rifle from Columbcille Court towards soldiers close to the Presbyterian church, an incident we considered earlier in this report,2 the weapon that he used was dumped in the boot of a car that was parked on the eastern side of Glenfada Park North. We consider their accounts in detail below, but note here that in our view this happened.

1 FS7.2012 2Chapter 19

Consideration of the submissions

111.11 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers submitted that the material considered above provided clear evidence that Glenfada Park North was indeed likely to be the destination of both rioters and armed men surprised by the Army incursion into the Bogside on that day ”.1 As we understand the submission, it is that this evidence provides support for the accounts of the soldiers who went into Glenfada Park North and there opened fire.

1 FS7.2014

111.12 What this evidence shows is that Glenfada Park North was considered to be a place of safety for rioters and indeed for paramilitaries, because the area was not visible from Army Observation Posts and because at the time of Bloody Sunday it was thought that the security forces would not venture that far into the Bogside. The evidence shows that before Bloody Sunday, arms were stored in the area and that there was paramilitary firing from the area against the soldiers. The evidence also shows that shortly before soldiers did come into Glenfada Park North, members of the Official IRA dumped a weapon in a car that was parked there.

111.13 This evidence, of course, does not of itself establish what happened when soldiers did come unexpectedly into Glenfada Park North, as they did on Bloody Sunday, though it does indicate that republican paramilitaries could have been in that area of the Bogside.

111.14 In our view the central question in the context of Sector 4 is not simply whether paramilitaries or rioters might go into Glenfada Park North when surprised by soldiers coming into the Bogside, or had at some other time fired at soldiers from there, nor even whether paramilitaries or rioters had taken refuge there when the soldiers did come in on Bloody Sunday. To our minds the central question is whether there is evidence that when the soldiers came into Glenfada Park North, there were paramilitaries there who behaved either in the manner described by the soldiers, or otherwise in such a way as to cause the soldiers to open fire.

111.15 With this question in mind we now turn to consider other evidence of paramilitary activity in Glenfada Park North.

The gunman or gunmen seen on Rossville Street

111.16 In that part of this report dealing with the events of Sector 3, we considered the evidence given by Private 017 of encountering a man with a handgun on the western side of Rossville Street.1 Private 017, who was armed with a baton gun, was one of the members of Mortar Platoon who debussed from Sergeant O’s Armoured Personnel Carrier when it slowed on Rossville Street. He ran to the wall of the pram-ramp at the southern end of Kells Walk, from where, on his account, he saw the gunman further to the south shortly afterwards; and hence before soldiers from Anti-Tank Platoon entered Glenfada Park North. We also considered the accounts given by a number of civilians – Fr Thomas O’Gara, Marian McMenamin, Michael Lynch, Margo Harkin and Liam Mailey – whose evidence supported the proposition that there was a man with a handgun on Rossville Street as, or shortly after, Support Company entered the Bogside. We concluded that there had been at least one man who had fired a handgun at this stage and that there may have been others. From the evidence of these witnesses, it appears that at least one gunman then fled from Rossville Street along one of the alleyways at the north end of Glenfada Park North. We do not know where he went, but it is at least possible that it was into Glenfada Park North.

1 Chapter 74

111.17 We have concluded earlier in this part of the report1 that the gunman or gunmen who fled along one of the alleyways was not the reason for soldiers going into Glenfada Park North. We have already considered, and – for the reasons we have given – rejected, the evidence of Lieutenant 119 of seeing a man with a handgun at the south-east corner of Glenfada Park North, some distance from the gunman to which the witnesses, including Private 017, referred. None of the soldiers who went into Glenfada Park North and opened fire claimed in their evidence to the Royal Military Police (RMP) or to the Widgery Inquiry to have seen a man with a handgun in Glenfada Park North. There is an entry in Major Loden’s List of Engagements,2 which records firing at two men with pistols and that one was hit and the other unhurt. We have concluded that it is possible that this entry was made from information provided by Private G, but since that soldier afterwards described his targets as men with small rifles, and said that both were shot, this is only a possibility. There is nothing from any of the other firing soldiers to suggest that any of them saw one or more men armed with pistols. Thus even if one or more men with handguns did flee into Glenfada Park North, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they were there when the soldiers came into Glenfada Park North or (assuming that they were there) that their presence caused any of the soldiers to open fire.

1 Chapters 93 and 94 2ED49.12

Evidence given to journalists of a man with a handgun firing in Glenfada Park North

111.18 John Barry of the Sunday Times Insight Team told this Inquiry that he interviewed the politician and civil rights activist Ivan Cooper at some point soon after his team had finished writing its article on Bloody Sunday (hence after 23rd April 1972).1 This Inquiry obtained the Insight Team’s working papers from the Sunday Times, including a long note that John Barry said he had made from a tape recording of his interview with Ivan Cooper.2 This note includes the following passage:3

“IC [Ivan Cooper] only heard later that [OIRA 6] had fired a revolver in Glenfada Park. McE [George McEvoy] told IC that [OIRA 6] had been running around mad with a pistol all afternoon. McE says he fired very very early. ”

1 Day 193/105; M3.6

2 Day 193/122

3 KC12.71

111.19 Ivan Cooper told this Inquiry that he had never been interviewed by John Barry or any member of the Insight Team and he rejected the note referred to above in its entirety.1 In response to the specific passage relating to OIRA 6 and the handgun, Ivan Cooper said that while he knew of OIRA 6 at the time of Bloody Sunday, he had never been aware that OIRA 6 was carrying a weapon that day.2 However, we are of the view that John Barry did interview Ivan Cooper and made an accurate record of what Ivan Cooper told him.

1 Day 419/76-78; Day 419/142-143

2 Day 419/132-133

111.20 George McEvoy made a statement to this Inquiry in which he described Ivan Cooper as a fantastic liar and refuted many of the claims that Ivan Cooper is recorded as having made about him in John Barry’s interview note.1 George McEvoy also stated that he did not know anybody with OIRA 6’s name.2 OIRA 6 denied carrying a weapon or being in Glenfada Park on the day, and he told us that he did not know George McEvoy and had only heard of, but had not met, Ivan Cooper.3

1 AM208.3-5

2 AM208.4

3 AOIRA6.7; Day 413/163-164

111.21 In these circumstances it is difficult to be confident of the accuracy of what Ivan Cooper told John Barry. His account was on its face second-hand, and his claimed source denied that he had told Ivan Cooper what the latter told John Barry. Furthermore, OIRA 6 denied being in Glenfada Park North or having a handgun on the day. At best, this evidence raises the possibility that there was a man with a handgun (whether or not it was OIRA 6) who fired in Glenfada Park North. This was said to be at a very early stage, which would hardly seem to describe the stage when soldiers came into Glenfada Park North, which was after considerable firing by soldiers in Sectors 2 and 3; while, at the same time, there would seem to be little point in anyone firing a handgun in Glenfada Park North if the soldiers had not come in. In these circumstances we consider it possible that what Ivan Cooper told John Barry was a confused reference to the man, or one of the men, with a handgun, whom Private 017 and others saw on the western side of Rossville Street. This incident could be described as being at an early stage. Whatever the truth may be, none of the soldiers who went into Glenfada Park North and there opened fire claimed in his statements or oral evidence to have seen or heard a man with, or firing, a handgun when the soldiers arrived in that area; nor is there any other evidence that suggests to us that a man firing a handgun caused any of the soldiers to open fire in Glenfada Park North or Abbey Park.

111.22 The Sunday Times archive also contains what appears to be a note taken by John Barry during or following an interview with OIRA 1.1 John Barry told this Inquiry that he had no independent recollection of such an interview, or of the provenance of the note, although he was sure that he had talked to OIRA 1 during the time when the Insight Team was staying in the Bogside.2 From the language and phrases used in the note, John Barry thought that it was not made from a tape recording.3

1 AOIRA1.1; Day 193/100

2 Day 193/100-101

3 Day 193/101

111.23 As we have discussed during our consideration of the events of Sector 1,1 OIRA 1 fired a rifle shot from Columbcille Court across William Street at a soldier close to the Presbyterian church approximately 20 minutes before Support Company entered the Bogside. According to the Sunday Times notes, OIRA 1 told John Barry that after firing this shot and being confronted by three Provisional IRA members, he returned the rifle to the boot of a car parked in Glenfada Park North. The words I think he said it was a green Avenger, but my notes don’t record that are included in parenthesis after the first reference to this car. The notes record OIRA 1’s reaction to the entry of Support Company into the Bogside in the following terms:2

“He sped back into Glenfada, and shouted to them to get the car out. He thought one of the Saracens would come into Glenfada and catch them red-handed. There were five or six Stickies [members of the Official IRA] around the car, and they couldnt get the thing out in time. OIRA 1 said to abandon it, and get the arms out of the boot. They did: the arms consisted of a Sten, a carbine, two 303s and a .22 automatic.

He toyed with the idea of trying to make a fight of it, but rejected the idea. ‘The men weren’t in position’. Shouted to everyone to retreat. All didd, except for one – who ran up to what OIRA 1 swears was the north-west corner of Glenfada, that is the corner towards Wm St [William Street] and furthest from the flats. OIRA 1 says he got up on a balcony – on the front of C. Court [Columbcille Court], he said the bloke told him later, – and got in a couple of shots with the 22 automatic.

OIRA 1 says he knows that a man from the Creggan section of the Officials got in a couple of shots in the carpark from a .38 pistol. Those, says OIRA 1, are theonly three sets of shots that the Officials got off before the troops opened up. ”

1 Chapter 19 2AOIRA1.1

111.24 We deal in more detail below with the evidence about a car containing arms in Glenfada Park North.

111.25 As we have noted when dealing with the events of Sector 1,1 OIRA 1 denied participating in a formal interview with John Barry, although he said that it was possible that he spoke to him.2 OIRA 1 also denied many of the details contained in the Sunday Times note, and said that he doubted that he would have provided John Barry with information of the type that was recorded.3 OIRA 1 stated to this Inquiry that he did not provide the information concerning the weapons that were taken out of the car to John Barry. He also said that there was no possibility that there was more than one weapon in the car and he denied seeing any other Official IRA volunteers in Glenfada Park North at that time.4 He dismissed as false the information suggesting that someone fired from a balcony at the soldiers.5

1 Chapter 19

2 Day 395/106

3 AOIRA1.31-32; Day 395/106-109

4 Day 395/117-118

5 Day 396/105

111.26 However, for the reasons that we gave, we are sure that OIRA 1 did speak to John Barry, and in our view John Barry accurately recorded what OIRA 1 had told him about this incident.

111.27 We have also referred, when dealing with the events of Sector 1,1 to an article written by Gerard Kemp, which was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 23rd April 1972. The article contains quotations from an interview between Gerard Kemp and a man described as the Official IRA sniper who fired at soldiers close to the Presbyterian church, a description that matches OIRA 1. The sniper is recorded as giving the following account of events after he had fired that shot:2

“After I fired that one shot I went back to my car and put the rifle in the boot. Ten to 15 minutes later the Paras moved up and I told our boys to get their weapons out of their cars.

Only a few of us were there. Most of the I.R.A. were up on the Creggan because we expected the Army to take advantage of the march and move in up there.

One guy got on to a balcony and fired at the Paras. Someone else fired with the pistol. I was by the barricade in Rossville Street next and saw three civilians go down. They were cracking away all over the show mostly army S.L.R.s (self-loading rifles). We started running. James Wray was shot dead just behind me. ”

1 Chapter 19 2L210

111.28 Gerard Kemp told this Inquiry that he could no longer remember this interview, but he had no reason to doubt that the article contained an accurate record of what he was told.1 OIRA 1, however, said that he did not know Gerard Kemp and he did not think that he had given him such an interview.2 OIRA 1 told us that the parts of the extract quoted above dealing with the order for our boys to get weapons and with the firing from the balcony were both inaccurate, as was the sentence about someone firing with a pistol, unless this was a reference to OIRA 4’s shots in the Rossville Flats car park.3 We are of the view that OIRA 1 did speak to Gerard Kemp, and that the latter did accurately record what he was told.

1 M47.2

2 Day 395/138

3 Day 395/140-141; Day 396/104-105

111.29 As to what OIRA 1 told John Barry about a man firing in a car park with a .38 pistol, and what he told Gerard Kemp about someone firing with the pistol , we consider it more likely than not that both of these references were to the shots fired by OIRA 4 in the car park of the Rossville Flats. We discuss the circumstances in which OIRA 4 fired those shots elsewhere in this report.1

1 Chapter 58

111.30 Although OIRA 1 told John Barry that the man had fired with a .38 pistol, whereas OIRA 4 told us he was armed with a .32, we nevertheless consider it more likely that the phrase the car park refers to the Rossville Flats car park rather than to Glenfada Park North. Witnesses generally referred to the latter as “Glenfada Park ” or “Glenfada Park North ” and not as “the car park”. John Barry was told by OIRA 1 that the man had fired before the troops opened up (which was not the case with OIRA 4), but to our minds this phrase cannot have meant before any soldiers had fired at all (because of the shooting by soldiers in Sector 1) and in our view was in its context probably a reference to soldiers opening fire in Rossville Street or Glenfada Park North; and it does not lead us to doubt that the firing referred to was probably that of OIRA 4 in the car park of the Rossville Flats.

111.31 As to what Gerard Kemp was told, although what he wrote could indicate that he was told that a man with a pistol fired in Glenfada Park North, it is noteworthy that if this is so, OIRA 1 did not mention to Gerard Kemp, as in our view he did to John Barry, the firing by OIRA 4, but instead told him of some other, unadmitted Official IRA firing on the day. This seems to us to be unlikely.

111.32 In our view, therefore, the evidence under discussion does not establish that a man fired a handgun in Glenfada Park North.

111.33 It is to be noted that none of the soldiers who went into Glenfada Park North and there opened fire claimed in their statements or oral evidence to have seen or heard a man firing a handgun in that area. As we have already observed, there is nothing to suggest that a man firing a handgun caused any of the soldiers to open fire in Glenfada Park North.

111.34 As to the shots said to have been fired from a balcony, it seems unlikely that this was a reference to the incident described by Private 017 and which we have considered in the context of Sector 3,1 since this involved a man with a handgun further to the south of Columbcille Court and at ground level. We have found no other evidence that suggests to us that there was firing from a balcony in Columbcille Court. It is just possible that OIRA 1 was referring to shots that in our view were probably fired at soldiers in Sector 2 from a balcony of the Rossville Flats, which we have discussed elsewhere in this report,2 and that he misunderstood or was misinformed of the location. It is noteworthy that Gerard Kemp’s article is to the effect that, according to OIRA 1, both the car park and balcony shots were fired before three people fell at the rubble barricade, another possible indication that they were fired before soldiers came into Glenfada Park North.

1 Chapter 74 2Paragraphs 58.120–131

111.35 In these circumstances, we are not persuaded that shots were fired from a balcony in Columbcille Court. Again, however, even assuming that there were such shots, there is nothing that suggests to us that these were heard by, or had any effect on, the soldiers who went into Glenfada Park North.

The question of photographic evidence indicating paramilitary activity in the north-east corner of Glenfada Park North

111.36 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers submitted that there was photographic evidence, which indicated “that there was activity in the north east corner of the square [Glenfada Park North] shortly before the soldiers entered which caused concern to the civilians gathered in the area 1 and that something was taking place in the north east of Glenfada Park North in the period shortly before soldiers entered ”.2

1 FS7.2018 2FS7.2021

111.37 We have earlier shown the photographs to which these submissions refer, but we reproduce them again here. The first, which was taken by freelance photographer Liam Mailey, shows the scene at the Rossville Street entrance to Glenfada Park North shortly after Michael Kelly, who had been mortally wounded at the rubble barricade, had been carried there.

111.38 The other three photographs were taken by Ciaran Donnelly of the Irish Times. They show the group carrying Michael Kelly across Glenfada Park North.

111.39 The last three photographs show the group initially carrying Michael Kelly towards the north-east corner of Glenfada Park North, but then changing direction and moving towards the alleyway at the south-west corner that led to Abbey Park. As we have already noted, these photographs were taken before (but only just before) the soldiers came into Glenfada Park North. The first photograph, which was taken a little earlier, shows a man on the left-hand side of the frame seemingly gesticulating with his right hand. The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers submitted that this man was “signalling or remonstrating towards the north east corner of Glenfada Park North.1 Whether the man was actually facing that corner (as opposed to a generally northward direction) and whether he was signalling or remonstrating or merely waving to someone to the north is not apparent from the photograph.

1 FS7.2021

111.40 In the context in which the submission is made it seems to be suggested that the activity that prompted the change of direction and the man to gesticulate was related to the presence of gunmen or men with bombs, or perhaps both, on the northern side of Glenfada Park North.

111.41 We find no force in this submission and do not accept it. None of those who gave evidence to us about lifting and carrying Michael Kelly have suggested that they changed course because of any such activity, nor have we found any other evidence from any source that indicates to us that this might have been the reason for the change of course, or for the man gesticulating earlier.

Michael Kivelehan

111.42 In 1991 John Goddard, a journalist with Praxis Films Ltd, interviewed Michael Kivelehan.1 He made the following notes of this interview:2

“Michael Kivelehan (along with mother, two sisters at various points, and if they could have got in the room another 37 Kivelehans.) Michael is a taxi driver, around early 40’s. Never been in any bother or involved.

His brother, and brother in law, were on the barricade when the shooting started there, and he is endeavouring to get them to talk to me.

Michael is believable up to point, but all the contentious stuff which is off tape his two sisters and mother backed up immediately with more detail. So …? Excellent talker however.

WITNESS: GLENFADA PARK EVENTS

NOT WIDGERY and not talked before to anyone.

STORY
Saw two men who had been shot be [sic] soldiers early that day. One called Robinson. About 10 am.

Whole family (four brothers, seven sisters, children etc.) been to aunt’s funeral that morning, and on march in best clothes etc.

Watching riot at bottom of William street when Paras came out. Began to run up Rossville street. Saracens parked across Kells Walk, Pilots Row, men came out of them. Over barricade, they had started shooting – impression was from the men by Kells Walk, boy got stuck on barbed wire on top of barricade. Not sure if shot or not. Been no shooting, bombing, even stoneing at that point. Me into Glenfada Park, and to my Grannie’s flat, top right corner of top quadrangle. Soldiers coming into G. Park from Kells Walk.

In flat it was pandemonium – women on floor praying, shooting outside, picking targets by sound of it.

Looking through letter box into Glenfada saw:
– Young fella running across G. Park towards alley by us, and soldier leaning down the far corner, shot him.
– Young fella arrested by soldier, against wall, rifle near or against his right cheek, shot him.

Went to other side of house, window looking out on to Abbey Park, saw: – two bodies laid on ground out there.

Not republican minded, political.

OFF the record:
– Man with short arm in their flat, disarmed and got rid of.
– Two nail bombs dumped in street outside his flat. Know because dragged the two boys in who had them. ENDS. ”

1 M86.15

2 AK45.1

111.43 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, John Goddard told us that the contentious stuff referred to in his note was the off the record information regarding the short arm and the nail bombs. He also said that the interview took place during a family gathering, and he indicated that other members of Michael Kivelehan’s family contributed to the evidence regarding this issue.1

1 Day 233/199-200

111.44 John Goddard told us that he believed that the family as a whole were very, very detailed in what happened , namely that the people with weapons were disarmed, clipped round the ear and told to sit in a corner .1 He later added that the Kivelehans had told him that the gun was broken up and attempts were made to drop it down the toilet and various other places .2 He told us that the Kivelehans did not know where the gun had come from.3

1 Day 233/200

2 Day 234/61

3 Day 234/62

111.45 In his written evidence to this Inquiry, Michael Kivelehan told us that he had been in his grandmother’s flat on Bloody Sunday and that the flat was towards the southern end of the western side of Glenfada Park North.1 We are sure that this is where the flat was. Michael Kivelehan referred to the notes made by John Goddard and told us:2

“I have to say I do not remember the interview but in view of what he says about lots of Kivelehans being together I wonder whether these notes were made at the 50th wedding anniversary of my parents in 1992 which was held at the Hall of the Ancient Order of Hibernians.3I have a vague memory of being interviewed but where or when it was I do not know. My age is given as early 40’s and as I am now 55. I suppose that this is about right. Also I was a taxi driver.

The journalist has got it wrong however when he talks about seeing two men who had been shot by soldiers early in the day. There was a shooting near Columbcille Court the previous day when Peter Robson and Peter McLaughlin were shot near the Grandstand bar and this may be what is being referred to. I did not see anybody shot on the day itself and during the morning I was involved with my aunt’s funeral.

He mentions looking through the letterbox into Glenfada. I think this is something my brother in law, John McCourt, did rather than me.

Also, he refers to a young fellow being shot in the cheek. I think that the journalist is fantasising about this. I may have heard about it and the name Michael Quinn which has been mentioned to me now rings a bell but I think it was probably John McCourt who said he had seen someone shot in the cheek and I picked this up.

I do not remember anything about two boys with nail bombs. Maybe there were two boys in the house with us but I did not see them and I don’t remember them having nail bombs. I have been referred to the evidence of Michael Quinn given to this Inquiry where he talks of two lads with nail bombs being led away. I know nothing about this. Certainly, I was not involved in any such incident. I do have a vague memory of a youngster about 18 or 19 who was brought into the house by John McCourt but I do not remember him having any nail bombs or there being any short arm or pistol in the house. If it happened I do not remember it.

I have been asked whether, assuming that it is I who gave the interview, the information was given under any cloak of confidentiality. I do not remember giving the interview, nor do I remember the journalist nor do I remember any undertaking of confidentiality being asked for or given. ”

1 AK45.4

2 AK45.5

3 In his oral evidence, Michael Kivelehan said that the anniversary might have been in 1991 or 1992
(
Day 406/67).

111.46 Michael Kivelehan’s oral evidence to us was in effect that he had no independent recollection of the circumstances of the interview.1 He told us that he did not recall any information regarding the presence of nail bombs or a short arm in his grandmother’s house on Bloody Sunday.2 He said that he would not have forgotten about the incidents described at the end of John Goddard’s notes if he had been aware of them, and he stated that if he did know anything about such matters he would have been prepared to tell the Inquiry.3 He suggested that he might have been drunk during the interview, which would explain his lack of memory. He could not explain why this would have made him invent a story about the presence of nail bombs and a short arm in his grandmother’s house, other than suggesting that it might have been wishful thinking – a phrase that he was subsequently unable to expand upon.4 However, Michael Kivelehan accepted that he had no basis for suggesting that Mr Goddard is wrong in what he says happened at the interview ”.5

1 Day 406/67-68; Day 406/77-78

2 Day 406/79-80

3 Day 406/80-81

4 Day 406/81-82

5 Day 406/85-86

111.47 Michael Kivelehan also told us that he had eight sisters and three brothers. He said that he did not know to which two sisters John Goddard was referring in the first line of his note, a reference that implies that these sisters, and their mother, took part in the interview.1 We consider the evidence of other members of his family about the interview and the events of Bloody Sunday in the paragraphs that follow.

1 Day 406/68-69; Day 406/71

111.48 Michael Kivelehan’s brother-in-law John McCourt, to whom Michael Kivelehan referred in his evidence to this Inquiry, told us that he vaguely recalled the presence of a journalist at a family celebration in the early 1990s. In contrast to Michael Kivelehan’s evidence, John McCourt thought that this celebration took place at Michael Kivelehan’s house. John McCourt said that he saw this journalist but did not meet him.1 He said that he later learned that the journalist had been invited to the gathering by Michael Kivelehan in order to conduct an interview.2

1 Day 423/96-97; Day 423/112-114

2 Day 423/102-103; Day 423/115

111.49 In relation to the events of Bloody Sunday, John McCourt, whose evidence we consider in greater detail in our consideration of the events of Sector 4, told us that he had entered his wife’s grandmother’s house in Glenfada Park shortly after the soldiers had fired in that area. He told us that he recalled that a 14- or 15-year-old boy went into the house with him. However, he stated that if the youth was in possession of a gun he did not see it, and he would not have let him into the house in those circumstances. He stated that he had no recollection of seeing any civilian with a weapon or nail bomb, or of anyone being disarmed, on Bloody Sunday.1 He also said that it would not have been possible for Michael Kivelehan to have dragged two youths who had been in possession of nail bombs into the flat as I was outside and Mickey went in first and we went in and closed the door, nobody went back out again ”.2

1 AM144.2-3; AM144.10

2 Day 423/108

111.50 John McCourt also told us that:1

“On one occasion, some time ago now Michael did mention to me that he had seen a boy with a gun on the day, but he did not say where or when, and we did not discuss it further. In my view Michael can be fanciful on occasions and I just put it down to silly, stupid talk. ”

1 AM144.10

111.51 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, John McCourt said that Michael Kivelehan had told him that he had taken the gun away from the man. John McCourt said that the conversation took place in a bar, years after Bloody Sunday but long before Michael Kivelehan’s interview with the journalist at the family gathering. He told us that he could not provide any further detail about what Michael Kivelehan had said of the incident, and reiterated that he considered the comments to be fanciful , adding that Mickey was the type of person who tended to make himself feel important ”. When asked whether it had occurred to him that the incident could have taken place in the house in Glenfada Park North, John McCourt commented: Very strange that nobody else seen this, I mean, there was quite a lot of people in this flat. 1

1 Day 423/103-107

111.52 John McCourt’s wife and Michael Kivelehan’s sister, Jane McCourt, told us that she was in her grandmother’s flat on Bloody Sunday, which she said was on the western side of Glenfada Park North.1 She told us that she had no knowledge of a journalist interviewing her brother or any other members of her family.2 She also told us that she did not see any of the incidents described in the note, and would not, knowingly, have allowed an armed person into her grandmother’s flat.3 She said that the only family gathering that they had had in recent years and before the death of her mother was the celebration of her parents’ 50th wedding anniversary, held at the Ancient Order of Hibernians club.4

1 AM142.1; AM142.3

2 Day 423/121-122; Day 423/129-130

3 AM142.4; Day 423/122-124

4 Day 423/128; Day 423/131

111.53 Jane McCourt also told us that her other sisters could not have supplied John Goddard with information as they were not present in her grandmother’s flat on Bloody Sunday.1 She agreed with her husband’s opinion that Michael Kivelehan could be fanciful , but said that she would not describe her mother in the same way.2 She also stated that her husband had never spoken to her about Michael Kivelehan’s alleged comments about seeing a man with a gun on Bloody Sunday.3

1 Day 423/126-127

2 Day 423/125

3 Day 423/124-125; Day 423/129

111.54 Michael Kivelehan’s wife, Helen Kivelehan, also recalled making her way to her husband’s grandmother’s flat.1 She was there when her husband arrived.2

1 AK48.1

2 AK48.2

111.55 Helen Kivelehan stated that she had no knowledge, either from the time or after having been told by members of her family, of the contentious events described in John Goddard’s notes. She told us that she was not interviewed by John Goddard, and had no recollection, or knowledge, of a journalist speaking to her husband.1

1 AK48.4; Day 423/83-85

111.56 Helen Kivelehan also told this Inquiry, in response to being shown John McCourt’s account, that her husband had never mentioned to her that he saw a boy with a gun on Bloody Sunday.1 She denied that her husband was fanciful or fancifully given to making up stories of that kind of severity ”.2

1 Day 423/86-87

2 Day 423/91-92

111.57 Mary Ann Kivelehan, the mother of Michael Kivelehan and Jane McCourt, gave a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Assoication (NICRA) statement, but because of ill health gave no evidence to this Inquiry. In her NICRA statement, she recorded that she was in her mother’s flat on Bloody Sunday, but she made no reference to the presence of weapons or nail bombs. At the end of her statement she recorded that John and Jane McCourt and Michael and Helen Kivelehan could corroborate her evidence.1

1 AK38.1

111.58 The evidence of those who were in Michael Kivelehan’s grandmother’s flat is that a lot of family members were present there, as there was a family get-together following Michael Kivelehan’s aunt’s funeral.1 John McCourt thought that there were more members of the Doherty side of the family than the Kivelehan side present.2 Michael Kivelehan accepted that the reference to pandemonium inside the flat in John Goddard’s notes would have been accurate.3

1 AM142.1; AK48.1; Day 423/77

2 Day 423/101

3 Day 406/73-74

111.59 As will have been noted, evidence on this topic is confused and conflicting. However, our assessment of the evidence leads us to conclude that John Goddard did interview Michael Kivelehan in the presence of members of his family. It is difficult to see how or why he would have invented or could have misunderstood what he described as the off the record matters, and we also conclude that in our view he was informed of these matters by Michael Kivelehan and perhaps others of the family.

111.60 More difficult is the question of the accuracy of the account that Michael Kivelehan gave John Goddard.

111.61 Without being at all certain, it is our view that there probably was some incident when a man armed with a short arm, by which we understand a handgun, took refuge in the flat on Bloody Sunday; and that Michael Kivelehan or others of the family took and disposed of this weapon. Who the man was, when he came into the flat, where he had come from and what he had previously been doing (including whether he had fired this weapon) remain unknown. He might have been the man or one of the men seen by Private 017 and others, which we have discussed earlier,1but this can only be speculation. However, as we have already observed,2there is only the entry in Major Loden’s List of Engagements that could be said to indicate that the soldiers saw and fired at two men with pistols, hitting one; and the evidential value of this entry is slight if not non-existent, since none of the soldiers who fired in Glenfada Park North claimed in their evidence to the RMP and the Widgery Inquiry that they had seen or shot at a man armed with a pistol. In our view there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a pistol man was or was likely to have been there when the soldiers came into Glenfada Park North or (even assuming that they were there) that their presence caused any of the soldiers to open fire.

1 Paragraph 111.16; Chapter 74 2Paragraph 111.17

111.62 As to the nail bombs, again in our view there probably was some such incident as recorded by John Goddard, though as with the man with a short arm, who these boys were, when they came into the flat, where they had come from and what they had previously been doing remain unknown. We have found nothing that suggests to us that soldiers had seen these individuals in possession of nail bombs; or anything that lends support to what the soldiers said they encountered when they got into Glenfada Park North and the reasons they gave for opening fire. What can be said, however, is that this material is evidence that there were two individuals with nail bombs (which they dumped) in Glenfada Park North at some stage during Bloody Sunday.

111.63 It was submitted by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers that it was overwhelmingly likely that Michael Kivelehan, who accepted that he had only given evidence under the threat of subpoena,1had been untruthful in his evidence to this Inquiry about what he could remember of the incidents discussed above.2Representatives of other soldiers also cast doubt on Michael Kivelehan’s honesty on this point, and argued that this, together with the fact that none of the members of Michael Kivelehan’s family or others who were in the flat at the time mentioned either the gunman or the nail bombs, means that The Tribunal is therefore faced with a clear example of reticence to tell the Tribunal the truth about civilian gunmen and nail bombers ”. It was also pointed out that no witness has come forward to admit carrying a handgun into this flat or to dumping nail bombs outside.3

1 Day 406/83

2 FS7.2034-2036

3 FS8.1239-1240

111.64 We remain in doubt whether or not to accept Michael Kivelehan’s evidence that he did not recall what he had told John Goddard about a gunman and boys with nail bombs. He may genuinely have forgotten, but equally he may have been reluctant to tell this Inquiry what he had witnessed. As to his family, we did not have an opportunity to question Mary Ann Kivelehan, Michael’s mother; and we do not know to which of the sisters John Goddard was referring in his note, or whether others in the flat were privy to what John Goddard was being told. Mary Ann Kivelehan made no mention of individuals with a short arm or bombs in her NICRA statement. On the whole we consider that there probably was reluctance to tell this Inquiry about the incidents in question.

111.65 As to the gunman and those with nail bombs, as Counsel to the Inquiry pointed out, they could be dead or, if active within paramilitary movements, reluctant for many reasons to come forward. Nevertheless, the fact remains that apart from the evidence under discussion, no-one has told us anything about this incident.

Michael Quinn

111.66 Michael Quinn, who was shot in the cheek as he ran from Glenfada Park North, gave an interview to the Sunday Times journalists Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobson, which is dated 1st March 1972.1This Inquiry has a copy of the journalists’ notes of the interview, and we have referred to it when considering the circumstances in which Michael Quinn was shot2and when dealing with the issue of unidentified casualties in Glenfada Park North.3

1 AQ11.10-16

2 Paragraphs 104.154–156

3 Chapter 110

111.67 According to the notes of the interview, Michael Quinn gave the following account, under guaranty of total anonymity , of seeing boys with nail bombs in Glenfada Park North:1

“while standing between the fences on the south side of glenfadda [sic] he saw two youths carrying nail bombs in their hands. one had long fair hair and was wearing a blue denim jacket; the other had very black hair, shortish, and was wearing a fawn jacket. the boms [sic] were cylindrical shape with a black fuse projecting from the top; they were about 6 ins long he estimates. at no time did he see the bombs lit but he is adamant that he saw them. one description fits gerard donaghy perfectly.

he says that he heard from close source that a senior official IRA man arrived on the scene and told the nail bombers to take them away as there was too much danger to other civilians. ”

1 AQ11.12

111.68 The comment that one of the descriptions fits gerard donaghy perfectly appears to have come from one of the journalists rather than Michael Quinn, who said that he did not know Gerald Donaghey.1Later in this report,2when considering whether Gerald Donaghey was in possession of nail bombs when he was shot in Abbey Park, we return to the question as to whether one of these descriptions does indeed fit him.

1 Day 169/122; Day 190/61 2Chapters 127 and 128

111.69 Michael Quinn said nothing to the Widgery Inquiry about seeing nail bombs.1In his written evidence to this Inquiry, he told us that he took shelter in Glenfada Park North after seeing soldiers taking up positions in the area of Kells Walk. He stated that he moved to a position about halfway along the path on the eastern side of Glenfada Park North, from where he saw the following incident:2

“I do not know how long I was in Glenfada Park North, but I remember after some time seeing two young fellows in the northeast corner at the point marked I in grid reference J13 (and on photograph MQ1) who were looking round the corner of the flats into Rossville Street. They were only young, about my age or a little bit older, and I did not know them. I was concerned in case they did anything. They were clearly nervous too, looking out and back again. I recall one of them having a denim jacket and dark hair and one with fair hair and a quilted anorak. The boy with the fair hair and quilted anorak had something which might have been a nail bomb in his left side pocket. I had not seen one before and didn’t know what it looked like but I remember something like a Coke tin with grey tape and a piece of material coming out of the top. Coupled with the fact that they were peering out towards the army and seemed very nervous and were keeping a look out I was very frightened by what I saw. It was then I saw a man coming from the northwest corner of Glenfada Park North walking in the direction of the arrow I have marked on the map into Glenfada Park North at grid reference I13 towards these two boys. I remember hearing him say words to the effect of ‘Put those away, you will only get people killed ’. My only recollection is of seeing what I took to be a nail bomb in a pocket, but my memory of these words suggests to me that the boys may have had something in their hands which I saw, but cannot now remember seeing. The shooting in Rossville Street was going on at this time and was reasonably intense and the boys did as they were told and left by the northwest corner of Glenfada Park with this man back the way he had come. I did not recognise the man, or know whether he was an IRA man but concluded later that the man probably was a member of the IRA – by virtue of the way the boys unquestioningly did what he told them. The man was older than we were and was wearing a long coat. I would say he was in his mid twenties but I had never seen him before or since. ”

1 AQ11.1-9

2 AQ11.22

111.70 The photograph and map to which Michael Quinn referred are set out below.1

1 AQ11.31; AQ11.29

111.71 During his oral evidence Michael Quinn told us, and we accept, that his recollection of events was limited to that which he had recorded in his written statement to this Inquiry.1He had, in his written evidence, made the following comments about those parts of the Sunday Times notes that concerned the youths with nail bombs:2

“Sunday Times:

I recall speaking to Jacobson and Pringle of The Sunday Times. I did not make a statement to them. It was soon after I had been released from hospital and was back at school and the journalists called at home to interview me. They said they would be in the City Hotel and so that evening I went down on my own to speak with them. There were just the three of us in the room and I told them what had happened to me. One was writing it down … I did say that I saw two boys with what I took to be nail bombs, but they had left Glenfada Park North before the soldiers came in. Apart from the two boys I had seen in Glenfada Park whom I have referred to above I did not see anybody with a nail bomb or anything which looked like one that day. Frankly it beggars belief that someone would throw a nail bomb at a soldier in a confined space with civilians present and I certainly saw no-one doing this. I am quite clear in my own mind about that. It is alleged that I had heard from someone else of a man arriving to tell the two boys to get out of Glenfada Park. This is incorrect, for as I have stated above, I witnessed this episode and the fact that they left some time before the entry of the Army. I did not witness any other activity that could be considered suspicious in Glenfada Park North. ”

1 Day 169/72

2 AQ11.26

111.72 In our view the account Michael Quinn gave the journalists in 1972 of seeing two youths carrying in their hands what he took to be nail bombs is likely to be more accurate or complete than his recollection so long afterwards, as indeed Michael Quinn indicated might be the case in his written statement to this Inquiry. Whether or not he saw a senior Official IRA man tell the two boys to get out of Glenfada Park, as opposed to being told about it, is perhaps not so clear, particularly because the Sunday Times journalists accepted that they might have misinterpreted some of Michael Quinn’s account of this incident.1In view of his evidence to this Inquiry, we are of the view that what Michael Quinn probably said (or intended to say) to the journalists was that he had seen the man tell the boys to leave and had seen them do so, but that it was not until later that he learned, or concluded, that the man was a member of the IRA.

1 Day 190/65-66; Day 191/149-150

111.73 As will be seen from his written evidence, Michael Quinn told us that reasonably intense shooting was going on in Rossville Street at the time when he saw the youths with nail bombs, and that the youths left Glenfada Park North before the soldiers arrived.1In view of the relatively short period of time between the first shots in Rossville Street and members of Anti-Tank Platoon entering Glenfada Park North and opening fire, according to Michael Quinn the youths could not have left Glenfada Park North very long before the soldiers arrived.

1 AQ11.22-23

111.74 We are satisfied from this evidence that Michael Quinn did see two youths with nail bombs in Glenfada Park North shortly before the soldiers came into that area. We are also satisfied from this evidence that these youths were told to leave and then did leave Glenfada Park North, before the soldiers arrived. To our minds it is unlikely that they returned, since they had been told to leave because of the danger to civilians, though it is just possible that these were the two who went into the flat on the western side of Glenfada Park North. What can be said is that this material is evidence that there were people with nail bombs in Glenfada Park North shortly before the soldiers arrived, who left and who were unlikely to have been, or stayed, in the open square when the soldiers arrived.

111.75 Whether one of the youths with nail bombs was Gerald Donaghey, who was shot and fatally wounded in Abbey Park, is a matter that we consider elsewhere in this report,1when dealing with the fact that nail bombs were found in his possession when he was brought to the Regimental Aid Post at Craigavon Bridge.

1 Chapters 126, 127 and 128

Danny Craig

111.76 Danny Craig’s name is attached to two 1972 statements: one undated1and the other dated 4th March.2The latter seems to have been a statement taken by Christopher Napier, a solicitor who acted for the families of the deceased at the Widgery Inquiry, as it bears his signature as a witness. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Danny Craig agreed that both statements were signed by him, and that both gave his then address.3Although he repeatedly told us that he had no memory of making either of these statements,4in our view he did. His written and oral evidence to this Inquiry in many respects differs from that which he gave in 1972.

1 AC111.7

2 AC111.11

3 Day 135/79; Day 135/83

4 Day 135/80-83; Day 135/89-90; Day 135/100-101; Day 135/105; Day 135/124-128; Day 135/133-134

111.77 Danny Craig told us that he had been next to Michael Kelly when the latter fell at the rubble barricade.1 He stated that he then ran into Glenfada Park North and took cover at a fence with about ten or 12 other people.2 In his written statement to this Inquiry he gave the following account of what he saw from this position:3

“When I was by the fence in Glenfada Park North with the other people I saw this young kid of about 10. He was carrying a tray made of a biscuit tin lid which looked to be full of petrol or nail bombs, although it may not have been as I have never seen a nail bomb and so do not actually know what one looks like. They looked like fireworks. He was crying his eyes out and he said to me ‘Mister, what do I do with these? ’ The big guys were coming across Glenfada Park and I knew that if we had been caught with those bombs we would have been shot dead. I was crying at this stage and I kicked the tray out of his hands and away from us and said ‘Get your arse out of here! ’ Whatever was on that tray never got used that day. ”

1 AC111.2

2 AC111.3

3 AC111.3

111.78 Danny Craig had given no such account in 1972. On the contrary, in his undated statement, he had recorded that At no time did I see anyone of the civilians with either a gun, a nailbomb or a petrol bomb ”.1

1 AC111.9

111.79 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Danny Craig expressed uncertainty as to where he was when this incident occurred. Eventually he told us that he thought that it was more likely that he was in Abbey Park than in Glenfada Park North.1Danny Craig said that the youth carrying the tray told him that the objects on it were nail bombs; and told us that there were about six or ten objects on the tray.2His oral evidence was to the effect that he did not actually see soldiers coming into Glenfada Park North or Abbey Park when he saw the boy with the tray of bombs, but that he expected them to do so from what people were saying and shouting.3

1 Day 135/63-75; Day 135/115; Day 135/139;
Day 135/151-152

2 Day 135/112-113; Day 135/111

3 Day 135/75-76; Day 135/114-115

111.80 Looked at on its own, we would find it difficult to accept the account given by Danny Craig of encountering a very young boy with a tray of bombs, who was weeping and asking what he should do with them; and then kicking the tray out of the boy’s hands, on the face of it a very dangerous thing to do with a tray he had been told was holding bombs. The account given by Danny Craig can only be described as extraordinary.

111.81 However, it was submitted by the representatives of some of the soldiers that despite the difficulties with Danny Craig’s evidence, there were similarities with the evidence of Charles McGill, to whom we now turn.1

1 FS8.1232

Charles McGill

111.82 Charles McGill made a NICRA statement, dated 3rd February 1972.1 He also made an initial written statement for this Inquiry, which he signed on 16th June 1999.2 During the course of the interview with the solicitors acting for the Inquiry (Eversheds) that led to the production of this statement, Charles McGill gave additional information on an “off the record ” basis. Eversheds produced a separate note that recorded this material,3 and Charles McGill later agreed, in a supplementary statement dated 29th January 2001, that this could be made public.4 The parts of the note made by Eversheds that are relevant to this part of the report were as follows:5

Information given by Witness, on condition that it was NOT used in Statement:

Mr McGill said he did not see any firearms on civilians that day but after the shooting had finished he saw a man with a rifle in Glenfada Park. He was wearing a long khaki/brown coat and had a rifle underneath his coat, which you could see. It was a swallow tail coat. Mr McGill spoke to him that day. The man asked him where he could get a firing point and Mr McGill told him to fuck off. After that the man disappeared. Mr McGill thinks that perhaps he came from one of the flats in Glenfada Park and that he was a member of the Official IRA.

Mr McGill also mentioned nail bombs. He said that he saw these long after the shooting was over. He saw three people, young men with long hair, who were panicking wanting to get rid of nail bombs. They had a tray with about 10 nail bombs in, which looked like grenades, shiny and well made. He saw them at about the same time and in the same area as the man with the rifle. He thinks that these men were Official IRA (Stickies)

MR McGILL STRESSED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT THIS MENTIONED IN HIS STATEMENT – he says that he has to live around here and he only gave us the information after we assured him that his statement would only be signed when he had amended it as he wished and was happy with it. Although he allows me to write this information down, he stressed that it was not to go in his statement.

He was legally represented at the time by Nicola Hart of M&F who assured him that the only information that would go in his statement was what he wanted to go in it. ”

1 AM230.8

2 AM230.1-7

3 AM230.11

4 AM230.9

5 AM230.11

111.83 In his supplementary statement of 22nd January 2001, Charles McGill commented on the matters recorded in this note.1

“5. The Eversheds note is broadly accurate but I have the following comments to make in relation to it.

6. I believed that the man who had the rifle was a member of the Official IRA because I knew that the Provisional IRA had said that they would be nowhere near the march. I was not personally told this but it was well publicised and common knowledge in the community in which I was living. On the basis of that information I assumed that the man was an Official. It was this knowledge that also leads me to assume that the three young men with the nail bombs were also Official IRA. However, I did not recognise any of them.

7. The note says that I saw the gunman in Glenfada Park. I now do not think that is correct. I now believe that I was in the Abbey Park area. At the time I was not familiar with the area even though I came from Derry. Indeed, I still am not familiar with the flats in the Bogside area. It was difficult to know one block of flats from another block. I had left the area of Mrs Shiels house at Columbcille Court. I had not been inside the house. I walked along either Abbey Street or one of the lanes away from the direction of Williams Street, as I knew that there were soldiers in that area.

8. I was going roughly south and I was going along between the grassy area at the front of Abbey Park and the western side of Glenfada Park North. I arrived in the area where Gerry McKinney was on the ground after having been shot. He was at point 12 on the map that is exhibited to my statement dated 16 June 1999.2 He was still on the ground when I arrived. I was at about that place when I saw the man with the rifle.

9. The shooting had ended and there were a lot of people milling about. They were more anxious about getting out of the area than in being shot. My main fear was in being lifted by the soldiers. I do not know where the rifleman came from. There were, as I say, many people milling about and he suddenly appeared. He was asking three or four people about where he could get a firing position. I was one of those people and I did tell him to fuck off. When I saw him he was to my right and ahead of me, to the north.

10. It was about the time that I saw the rifleman that I saw the young men with the nail bombs. They were also to the right of me. I do not think that they were together with the man with the rifle.

12. The reason why I did not want this information to be put in my Eversheds statement is explained in the Eversheds note. However, I also did not want people to use as an excuse to detract from the enormity of what I had seen that day – innocent people being shot down. I saw a lot of things from the time the shooting started but I did not hear any nail bombs that day or see any civilians fire any weapon.

13. When I made my statement to the Civil Rights people I do not believe that I would have told them of these events that I had seen after the shootings. My reasons for doing so are the same as those set out at paragraph 12 above. ”

1 AM230.9-10 2 Point 12 is approximately the position of the shallow steps that lay between the buildings of the western block of Glenfada Park North and Abbey Park.

111.84 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Charles McGill said that he could not be sure that he saw the man with the rifle and the youths with nail bombs at actually the same time , but they were in the same area.1

1 Day 69/116

111.85 We are sure that Charles McGill saw a man with a rifle and three young men with nail bombs, since it is difficult to conceive of a reason why he should invent such an account when interviewed for this Inquiry, but simultaneously ask for it to be treated in confidence. Further, we have no doubt that the note made by Eversheds of his “off the record ” evidence on this point was an accurate record of what he said at that time. However, it is less clear where and when he saw these armed men, and we discuss the evidence that he gave to this Inquiry on these points in the paragraphs that follow.

111.86 As Counsel to the Inquiry pointed out,1on these matters Charles McGill gave (or was recorded as having given), and then retracted, the following evidence:

a) that he saw the man with the rifle in Glenfada Park and the youths with nail bombs in the same area : evidence given “off the record ” during the statement-taking process with Eversheds;2 evidence retracted, in the sense that he located both incidents in Abbey Park, in his supplementary statement and oral evidence;3

b) that the gunman might have come from one of the flats in Glenfada Park: evidence given “off the record ” during the statement-taking process with Eversheds;4 evidence retracted during his oral evidence;5

c) that he moved through Glenfada Park himself: evidence given in original Eversheds statement;6 evidence retracted during his oral evidence;7

d) that he saw a group of girls crossing Glenfada Park as he looked at events at the rubble barricade: evidence given in original Eversheds statement;8 evidence retracted during his oral evidence;9 and

e) that he saw four bodies lying in the square , by which he meant Glenfada Park: evidence given in original Eversheds statement,10 and expanded upon in his oral evidence;11 evidence retracted during his oral evidence, where he said that he was only told about these bodies and did not see them.12

1 CS6.977

2 AM230.11

3 AM230.9-10; Day 69/112; Day 69/116; Day 69/172-173

4 AM230.11

5 Day 69/114

6 AM230.4

7 Day 69/101-103; Day 69/156

8 AM230.5

9 Day 69/104-105

10 AM230.5

11 Day 69/145

12 Day 69/145

111.87 As Counsel to the Inquiry also pointed out, Charles McGill offered various explanations as to how these changes to his evidence came about:1

a) that he was not very familiar with the area, even though he lived in the city;2

b) that the solicitor taking the statement had had difficulties in understanding what he was saying;3

c) that at the time he did not read through his first statement after he had given it, as he thought that this Inquiry would be a whitewash ;4

d) that he did not read the statement as I just did not think about it ;5

e) that his evidence was misinterpreted ”, as he did not know one park from the other , and thought of Glenfada Park as an area, not one block of flats ;6 and

f) that in relation to the four bodies in Glenfada Park, the difference between his oral and written evidence was because the latter was taken out of context .7

1 CS6.978

2 Day 69/99; AM230.9

3 Day 69/112

4 Day 69/146-147

5 Day 69/171

6 Day 69/170

7 Day 69/145-146

111.88 Dealing first with the question of where Charles McGill saw these individuals, he initially told Eversheds that the incident took place in Glenfada Park North, whereas in his supplementary statement and in his oral evidence Charles McGill told us that he believed that the incident had taken place in Abbey Park.1

1 AM230.9; Day 69/112; Day 69/116; Day 69/172-173

111.89 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers submitted that The Tribunal will no doubt consider whether Mr McGill had some reason to wish to relocate his evidence in this manner 1and that The Tribunal may well consider whether Mr McGill is in some way motivated to distance the gunman he saw from the Glenfada Park area ”.2As we understand the submission, it is that Charles McGill wanted to distance what he saw from the events of Glenfada Park North and the casualties sustained there.

1 FS7.2140

2 FS7.2142

111.90 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Charles McGill was asked whether he was trying to remove all these incidents from Glenfada Park, for some reason ”. His answer was No, no, no reason whatsoever ”.1

1 Day 69/173

111.91 For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that Charles McGill probably saw the man with a rifle and the youths with nail bombs in Abbey Park, not Glenfada Park North.

111.92 In his first written statement to this Inquiry he told us that:1

“At about 4.15 pm, as I was running or crawling in the Glenfada Park area, I remember seeing Gerry McKinney’s body lying on a ridge on a couple of steps. I would say he was positioned in the area marked at point 12 on the map (grid reference G13/G14). I recall that from where Gerry was lying, I could see William Street through the alleyway to the western side of Columbcille Court. There was a first aid person pumping Gerry’s chest. I did not see any blood. It looked as though they thought he had had a heart attack. ”

1 AM230.4

111.93 Point 12 on the map1marks the position where we are sure Gerard McKinney fell, which was, as we have already described,2on the northernmost set of steps leading to Abbey Park from Glenfada Park. Charles McGill, in this part of his first written account, used the expression the Glenfada Park area while describing something he saw in Abbey Park, which to our minds is an indication that he was not clearly differentiating between the two when he made his first statement. In his supplementary statement he told us that he was about where Gerard McKinney was when he saw the man with the rifle, and that about the same time he saw the youths with nail bombs.3

1 AM230.7

2 Chapter 107

3 AM230.9-10

111.94 Eversheds first interviewed Charles McGill in October 1998, at an early stage of this Inquiry. As we have noted above, he signed his first written statement on 16th June 1999, and his supplementary statement on 22nd January 2001, two days before he gave oral evidence. We do not find it surprising that on reflection he, like many other witnesses, should seek to correct or clarify what he had previously said about events that had taken place so long ago, especially considering his uncertainty about the geography of the Bogside. This to our minds is a much more likely reason for the changes to his evidence about where he saw the man with a rifle and the youths with nail bombs than the motive suggested by the soldiers, because the suggested motive does not explain why Charles McGill would want to distance what he saw from Glenfada Park to Abbey Park, where of course there were also casualties.

111.95 We now turn to the question of when Charles McGill saw the man with a rifle and the youths with nail bombs.

111.96 In our view Charles McGill saw these individuals at a relatively late stage, after the shooting in Glenfada Park North and Abbey Park. He told us, and we accept, that before seeing the armed men he saw Gerard McKinney lying on the steps in Abbey Park, being tended by a first aid person.1As we describe elsewhere in this report,2a first aid person did seek to help Gerard McKinney, in the mistaken belief that he had suffered a heart attack.

1 AM230.4; AM230.9; Day 69/113 2Chapter 108

111.97 Charles McGill made no mention in any of his accounts of seeing Gerald Donaghey, who was shot at the same time as Gerard McKinney and fell close to him. As we also describe elsewhere in this report,1soon after Gerard McKinney and Gerald Donaghey had fallen, the latter was picked up and carried into a nearby house. It follows, in our view, that Charles McGill must have arrived on the scene after this had happened, for otherwise he would have seen that there were two casualties on or near the steps, something that he would be unlikely to forget.

1 Chapters 107 and 129

111.98 We have concluded earlier in this report1that Gerard McKinney and Gerald Donaghey were shot in Abbey Park by Private G, after he and his colleagues had fired in Glenfada Park North, injuring or killing all of the casualties who were hit there. It follows that, in our view, Charles McGill did not see the man with the rifle, or the youths with nail bombs, until after the Sector 4 casualties had been shot.

1 Chapter 112

111.99 Charles McGill made no mention of seeing Jim Wray, William McKinney and Joe Mahon being carried from where they had fallen in Glenfada Park North into Abbey Park. As we describe elsewhere in this report,1this happened after Gerard McKinney and Gerald Donaghey had been shot. Again, in our view, Charles McGill would probably have mentioned the casualties being carried into Abbey Park had he been there at the time, which may be an indication that he only arrived in Abbey Park after these casualties had been carried into Abbey Park.

1 Chapter 108

111.100 There is, however, an aspect of Charles McGill’s evidence that suggests that he saw the man with the rifle and the youths with nail bombs before the casualties had been moved from Glenfada Park North. As is noted above, in his first written statement Charles McGill described seeing four or five bodies lying in the square ;1he subsequently told us that the square was a reference to Glenfada Park North.2The sequence of events as described in his first written statement to this Inquiry indicates that this would have been after he had seen the armed men, something that would be inconsistent with the Glenfada Park North casualties having been moved from there. In his oral evidence, Charles McGill stated that his written statement was totally untrue on this point, as he was only told about these bodies and did not actually see them.3

1 AM230.5

2 Day 69/145

3 Day 69/145

111.101 According to his first written statement to this Inquiry, Charles McGill saw the bodies lying in the square after he had seen bodies on the rubble barricade and after he had looked at the body of Bernard McGuigan, who had been shot in Sector 5 in circumstances we discuss elsewhere in this report.1In the light of these circumstances, we are of the view that by this stage it is more likely than not that the casualties had been moved from Glenfada Park North. Accordingly we consider it probable that Charles McGill was right when he told us that he was told about, rather than saw, casualties in Glenfada Park North.

1 Chapter 118

111.102 It has also been suggested that Charles McGill’s evidence of the firing that he heard on Bloody Sunday indicates that he saw the rifleman and the youths with nail bombs at a time when soldiers were still engaged in the Glenfada Park area. He originally told Eversheds (the solicitors acting for this Inquiry) that he saw the nail bombs long after the shooting was over ”.1In his supplementary statement he told us that when he saw the man with the rifle the shooting had ended and there were a lot of people milling about ”.2In his oral evidence to this Inquiry he reiterated that the shooting was all over by the time he saw the armed men.3A little later in his evidence Charles McGill gave the following evidence in response to the question of counsel for the majority of represented soldiers:4

“Q. Of course at the time you left Abbey Park, the shooting was going on, was it not, and it continued to go on when you were near to the rubble barricade; that is what you have told us?

A. Yeah, yeah.

Q. Was what you were telling us the truth?

A. Yeah, it is the truth as far as I can recall.

Q. If it is true that you saw a gunman in or near Abbey Park, that would be at a time when the shooting was still going on, would it not?

A. To be totally honest with you, there was no shooting at that time, that is what I recall.

Q. Then the shooting must have resumed, because you have told us it had resumed when you were away from Abbey Park, to which you did not return?

A. I told at the start I could not get any sequence other than what, what I seen that day, but there was no shooting from the gunman. ”

1 AM230.11

2 AM230.9

3 Day 69/112-113; Day 69/115

4 Day 69/155

111.103 Charles McGill’s evidence was that after he saw the youths with nail bombs he tried to get away as fast as I could from that area .1He subsequently moved to the northern end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park South, from where he could see the rubble barricade on Rossville Street.2Contrary to counsel’s suggestion, Charles McGill had not said that there had been shooting going on or continuing as he left Abbey Park. It is the case, however, that in his original statement to this Inquiry Charles McGill recorded that as he looked at the rubble barricade, the firing was continuing, although I could not see any soldiers .3Although at one stage during his oral evidence he appeared to doubt this recollection of gunfire,4later he told us that he did hear shooting when he was in this position, though it was not as heavy as that which he had heard earlier in the day.5

1 Day 69/116

2 AM230.4; AM230.7; Day 69/101-102

3 AM230.5

4 Day 69/104

5 Day 68/128-129

111.104 It was submitted to us by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers that Charles McGill’s evidence that there was still shooting from the Army when he reached the rubble barricade 1indicated that when he saw the man with a rifle in Glenfada Park or Abbey Park, shooting was still occurring and soldiers were still engaged in the area ”.2

1 FS7.2140

2 FS7.2140-2142

111.105 We do not accept this submission. It assumes that because Charles McGill heard shots when he was near the rubble barricade, there must also have been shooting when he was in Abbey Park. As appears from our consideration of the later events of Sector 3,1after the last of the casualties of Bloody Sunday was shot in Sector 5, there was a pause of some minutes before there was renewed shooting by the soldiers, this time aimed towards a window in Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. It follows that Charles McGill might have seen the gunman and moved from Abbey Park towards Rossville Street during the lull in firing, before hearing the later shots that were fired towards the flats once he had arrived by the rubble barricade.

1 Chapters 123 and 124

111.106 Further, Charles McGill told us that while he was in the region of the rubble barricade he did not see any civilians at the southern end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North.1As we discuss elsewhere in this report,2a group of civilians remained in this area until they were arrested and escorted away by members of Anti-Tank Platoon. This was after all of the Glenfada Park North and Abbey Park casualties had been shot. The absence of this group at the time when Charles McGill was in the area of the rubble barricade supports the proposition that he did not get there until relatively late in the day.

1 Day 69/104; Day 69/107 2Chapter 113

111.107 Our assessment of Charles McGill’s evidence, in the light of the other evidence to which we have referred, leads us to conclude that it is probable that he saw the man with the rifle and the youths with nail bombs after the casualties had been moved from Glenfada Park North and during the period between the end of the firing in Sectors 4 and 5 and the later firing by soldiers at Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

111.108 The representatives of other soldiers made a separate submission on the timing of Charles McGill’s accounts. They argued that Charles McGill’s evidence that he saw the youths with nail bombs at a late stage was highly questionable , especially because there was no reason for these young people to be panicking [as Charles McGill had suggested that they were] if this event occurred ‘long after’ the shooting had ended .1

1 FS8.1230-1231

111.109 In our view this submission is advanced with the benefit of hindsight. If, as is our view, Charles McGill saw the youths with nail bombs at a stage after the main shooting had taken place, this would still have been in the aftermath of a period in which scores of live rounds had been fired and soldiers had unexpectedly advanced into the Bogside as far as Glenfada Park North, and, in the case of Private G, Abbey Park. At that stage, the civilians in these areas could not have known whether or not the soldiers had permanently withdrawn or whether they were likely to return. This was a point that Charles McGill himself made in the course of his oral evidence:1

“Q. You are recorded there as saying that ‘the youngsters were panicking, wanting to get rid of them ’?

A. That is the opinion I got.

Q. That is what it appeared to be?

A. Yeah.

Q. The soldiers had all gone by then, had they not?

A. I never seen any soldiers there.

Q. There were not any soldiers about at that stage?

A. No, I never seen any soldiers.

Q. Was it apparent to you what they were panicking about?

A. It is okay talking now, you asked me a question now that people did not know when the army was going to come in, nobody was to say that the army was going to come in to lift people and arrest people.

Q. That is what you assume that they were panicking about?

A. Yeah. ”

1 Day 69/157-158

111.110 It was also the case that soldiers remained on the City Walls and other high points surrounding the Bogside, and that those carrying the nail bombs would have been at risk not only of arrest, but also of being shot.

111.111 In any event, of course, by the time we believe that Charles McGill saw the rifleman and the youths with nail bombs, there had been substantial shooting by soldiers, and people had been killed and wounded by Army gunfire. Many people have told us that they were at this stage in a state of fear, shock or panic and in our view those carrying the nail bombs are likely to have been similarly affected.

111.112 The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers also submitted that Charles McGill’s attitude to this Inquiry detracted from the reliability of his evidence.1As we have noted above, he told us that at the time that he gave his first statement he thought that the Inquiry would be a whitewash , and during his oral evidence he reiterated that belief.2

1 FS7.2144

2 Day 69/145-147

111.113 We do not accept this submission. It seems to us that whatever Charles McGill may have thought about the present Inquiry, it does not follow that he gave us evidence, especially in his supplementary statement and his oral evidence, upon which we should not rely. At the end of his oral evidence Charles McGill agreed that he had given Eversheds the information they recorded because he thought that the Tribunal should have a full account of that which he was able to say of the events of the day.1We can think of no other reason for Charles McGill to have mentioned the man with the rifle and the youths with nail bombs when he could simply have concealed his evidence on these points. We would also draw attention to the fact that when counsel for the majority of represented soldiers asked Charles McGill whether at the time he made his statement he was not taking the Inquiry seriously, the answer was I was taking it serious because I feel sorry for the people who were shot and the innocent people who were killed ”.2

1 Day 69/175

2 Day 69/146

111.114 Charles McGill told us that he thought that the rifleman and the youths with nail bombs were members of the Official IRA, but this was solely because he understood that the Provisional IRA would be nowhere near the march ”.1He also said that he did not recognise any of them.2In our view Charles McGill’s assumption that these men were members of the Official IRA does not amount to useful evidence identifying the organisation to which they belonged or may have belonged. We do not know who they were, though we do consider that they are likely to have been at least connected to the Official or the Provisional IRA, since we have found no evidence from any source to suggest that there were independent armed freelance republican paramilitaries in the city on Bloody Sunday.

1 AM230.11; AM230.9; Day 69/115; Day 69/117

2 AM230.9

111.115 During the course of his oral evidence, Charles McGill agreed that the tray on which he had seen nail bombs was similar to a biscuit tin lid.1As we have described above, Danny Craig told us that he had kicked a biscuit tin lid which was being used to carry nail bombs out of the hands of a boy in the Abbey Park or Glenfada Park area. We consider that Danny Craig probably saw the same nail bombs as Charles McGill, notwithstanding that the description the former gave of the incident he told us he had witnessed differs in material respects from what in our view was a far more credible account given by Charles McGill.

1 Day 69/159-160

111.116 Charles McGill told us that at some point during the day he was joined by his friend John Deeney. However, we have not found a comparative analysis of the evidence given by the two men to be of any assistance in the matter under consideration.1

1 AD28.1-4; AM230.5; Day 69/105; Day 69/129-130

111.117 In the circumstances discussed above, while Charles McGill’s evidence does show that there were paramilitaries in the area after the shooting by soldiers in Glenfada Park North, in our view it does not in itself lend any support to what the soldiers said they encountered when they got into Glenfada Park North or the reasons they gave for opening fire. There is nothing that suggests to us that soldiers saw youths with a tray of bombs when they came into Glenfada Park North; and in view of what Charles McGill heard the rifleman say, it is unlikely that he had been in Glenfada Park North while the soldiers were there. What such evidence does do is to indicate that there were armed paramilitaries in the area, albeit late in the day; and that no-one has come forward to explain who they were, where they had come from and what they had been doing. Charles McGill told us that many people were milling around when the man with a rifle appeared and that he was asking three or four people ”, including himself, about where he could get a firing position,1which is another indication that there may have been reluctance among some people to come forward to this Inquiry to tell us of paramilitary activity.

1 AM230.10

Benn Keaveney

111.118 Benn Keaveney told this Inquiry that while he was in the Abbey Park area in the aftermath of the shooting incidents, he saw two youths carrying a large box that contained between two and four nail bombs. The youths were 19 or 20 years old, and were wearing bulky jackets that he thought may have contained other nail bombs.1

1 AK2.12

111.119 In the course of his oral evidence, Benn Keaveney said that he recognised one of the youths, although he did not know his name. He had seen him at previous riots, and believed that the youth had associated with people who were armed with weapons or nail bombs on such occasions.1 He also stated that he was sure that the youths carried the nail bombs in a box rather than on a tray, as he had seen them carrying the box at an angle, with the nail bombs in one corner.2

1 Day 160/46-47

2 Day 160/108-109

111.120 Benn Keaveney also told us that the youths appeared to have just arrived in the area and did not seem to know what had happened. They were out of breath and had been running. They approached him and asked him where the Brits were. An old man also approached, and told the youths not to do anything as the soldiers had moved back and they (the Army) would use the presence of nail bombs to justify their actions.1 Benn Keaveney commented that the youths appeared to be resigned and moved back towards the Old Bog Road (Fahan Street West), which lay to the south of Abbey Park.2

1 AK2.12; Day 160/49-50

2 AK2.12

111.121 Benn Keaveney’s evidence was that this incident occurred after he had assisted in tending a casualty who lay at the shallow steps in Abbey Park, after he had helped carry at least one body into a house in Abbey Park and a long time after the Army had withdrawn. Benn Keaveney also told us that he had escorted a distressed old man into Glenfada Park South before he returned to Abbey Park and saw the youths carrying the nail bombs.1

1 AK2.10-12; Day 160/50-51

111.122 According to his evidence to this Inquiry, about five minutes after this incident Benn Keaveney saw a dark-haired man in his twenties or thirties, whom he believed was in the Provisional IRA, somewhere in the area of Lisfannon Park (the housing complex to the south of Fahan Street West). Benn Keaveney recalled that the man was wearing a long coat, inside which I could make out the obvious shape of a rifle . He did not know from where the man had come, but he saw him talking to the youths referred to above, who were still carrying the box containing nail bombs.1 Benn Keaveney told us that he thought that the man was a member of the Provisional IRA, as he had seen him at previous riots. He had heard the man referred to as a “Provo” and had seen him exercise some authority on previous occasions, but he said that he did not know his name or nickname.2

1 AK2.12; Day 160/51-54

2 Day 160/53-54

111.123 Benn Keaveney told us that he heard the man tell the youths to get back up ”, which he interpreted as meaning that they should go back to the Creggan. Benn Keaveney also saw other people in the area telling the man about who had been shot. He said that the man did not do anything with his rifle while he was watching and that the man and the two youths with nail bombs moved further into Lisfannon Park, at which stage he lost sight of them.1

1 AK2.12; Day 160/54

111.124 In May 1998, before making his formal written statement for this Inquiry, Benn Keaveney prepared his own written account for us,1 the relevant parts of which we set out below. This was broadly consistent with his later written statement and his oral evidence, although in this account Benn Keaveney recalled that the youths had nail bombs in their hands as well as in a box:

“Two young men appeared running which was strange because everyone else was still and quiet and shocked. They are out of breath and one was upset but also angry They had a number of nail bombs in their hands and some in a box. An older man stopped them going forward and told them not to throw the bombs and that the army had withdrawn. He then told them that ‘they ’ the army will just use it as an excuse to say that is why they fired. They stood still holding the bombs and I told them that the army has moved back and that there is no point. The two men agreed and walked away further into the Bogside. I am very very clear that the shooting was over and no more shots were ever fired. When I saw the men with the nail bombs: I had already helped carry people into houses and helped the old man and seen the army move back off Kells walk. Only then did I see the bombs carried by these two men who did not pass them to anyone else, light the fuses or throw them. A few minutes later I saw them again but much further back across Bogside road and they were talking to a man who had a rifle under his coat. Seeing him a number of men crossed over to this group and I went as well and they repeated that the army was gone and to shoot now would put at risk the injured and the dying. The man with the rifle nodded his head and ordered the other two to leave with him. There was no anger between these three men and the others. The general feeling then was not revenge but to help the wounded and the hundreds of distressed people milling around. Also the fact that there were some people dead was already starting to make some of the crowds start to pray. ”

1 AK2.21-22

111.125 In our view Benn Keaveney did see two youths with nail bombs in the area of Abbey Park, and later the same youths with a rifleman somewhere in Lisfannon Park. We also consider that he saw these individuals some time after the Army firing had finished. We do not know the identity of any of them, and though on the basis of Benn Keaveney’s evidence it could be suggested that they, or one or more of them, were members of the Provisional IRA, we remain in doubt as to whether this was the case.

111.126 We also remain in doubt as to whether those seen by Benn Keaveney were the same as those seen by Charles McGill. Benn Keaveney’s evidence that the bombs were being carried in a box, not on a tray, could be an indication that they were not the same people, but the possibility exists that at some stage after Charles McGill’s sighting, the bombs were transferred from a tray to a box.

111.127 As with Charles McGill, while Benn Keaveney’s evidence does show that there were paramilitaries in the area after the shooting by soldiers in Glenfada Park North, in our view it does not in itself lend any support to what the soldiers said they encountered when they got into Glenfada Park North or the reasons they gave for opening fire; or provide any other explanation for why they opened fire, since there is nothing that suggests to us that the youths with nail bombs or the man with a rifle were or were likely to have been in Glenfada Park North at any relevant time. What such evidence again does do is to indicate that there were armed paramilitaries in the area, albeit late in the day; and that no-one has come forward to explain who they were, where they had come from and what they had been doing.

111.128 We do not know whether the gunman seen by Benn Keaveney was the same individual seen by Charles McGill.

Noel McCartney

111.129 Noel McCartney, a reporter for the Derry Journal at the time of Bloody Sunday, gave a written statement for the Widgery Inquiry,1but did not give oral evidence to that Inquiry. He did, however, give both written and oral evidence to the present Inquiry. We have already referred to his evidence in detail elsewhere in this report2when considering the submission that there was an additional unidentified casualty in Sector 3.

1 M55.8-9 2Chapter 87

111.130 In his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry, Noel McCartney stated that he was at the entrance to the Glenfada Park North car park when a youth (clearly from his description Michael Kelly) was shot at the rubble barricade. He saw this casualty brought to a position close to him, and then left the area to look for someone with first aid training.1 He recorded that:2

“I went through Glenfada Park to Fahan Street looking for a first aid man. I then saw a civilian with a rifle who appeared at the opening to Rossville Street, who crossed inside Glenfada Park in the direction of Abbey Street. I found a first aid post at Blucher Street but they were assisting a 15 year old youth shot in the cheek. I heard more shooting and went to Lisfannon Park. ”

1 M55.8-M55.9

2 M55.9

111.131 We set out below a map showing the places mentioned in Noel McCartney’s written statement for the Widgery Inquiry.

111.132 The youth whom Noel McCartney saw being treated in Blucher Street was in our view Michael Quinn; as we discuss elsewhere in this report,1Michael Quinn was shot in the face in Glenfada Park North, and was subsequently taken to Blucher Street. Noel McCartney gave no evidence, either to the Widgery Inquiry or to us, of seeing any of the shooting incidents that occurred inside Glenfada Park North.

1 Paragraphs 104.139–164

111.133 Noel McCartney’s written statement for the Widgery Inquiry does not provide sufficient detail to allow us to ascertain precisely when or where, on his account, he saw a civilian with a rifle. On timing, it is only possible to establish from the statement that the purported sighting was made after Noel McCartney left the entrance to the Glenfada Park North car park and before he found the first aid post at Blucher Street. On location, Noel McCartney recorded that the man appeared at the opening to Rossville Street [and] crossed inside Glenfada Park in the direction of Abbey Street (emphasis added).

111.134 In respect of the latter point, it was submitted on behalf of the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers that earlier in his statement for the Widgery Inquiry, Noel McCartney had used the expression the opening to describe the entrance from Rossville Street into Glenfada Park North, which was close to the rubble barricade.1This is so. These representatives also submitted that the only opening , as opposed to alleyway , onto Rossville Street from either Glenfada Park North or Glenfada Park South was this entrance, but this point only has substance if each of the other entrances into Glenfada Park South from Rossville Street would not be described by anyone (including Noel McCartney) as an opening.

1 FS7.2145

111.135 On the basis of this submission, it could be suggested that Noel McCartney saw a rifleman at the entrance to the Glenfada Park North car park. However, looking at the material part of the statement as a whole, it is our view that Noel McCartney was saying that it was not until after he had left Glenfada Park North and the area of the rubble barricade, and had got as far as Fahan Street, that he saw the rifleman. Noel McCartney was asked about this point during his oral evidence to this Inquiry:1

“Q. I am asking you what you would have meant by the expression that was used in 1972:

‘I saw a civilian with a rifle who appeared at the opening to Rossville Street who crossed inside Glenfada Park to the direction of Abbey Street. ’

A. I am not sure, but I do not think it was that location, that is very close to the barricade. I think it was some distance from the barricade, from vague memory, that I saw this person.

LORD SAVILLE: Mr Clarke, if you look at 55.9, on the account given then, paragraph 7, the third sentence says:

‘I then saw a civilian ’ and the previous sentence says:

‘I went through Glenfada Park to Fahan Street looking for a first aid man. ’

I read that and whether or not Mr McCartney now can help us with his recollection is that it was only when you had in effect got to or virtually to Fahan Street that you saw this civilian; that would be further south than the arrow on the map Mr Clarke has just shown you?

A. Yes, that would be my memory. ”

1 Day 157/116

111.136 It was pointed out by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers that it is difficult to see how Noel McCartney, if he had got to Fahan Street, could have seen the man cross Glenfada Park South.1However, Noel McCartney’s statement could be interpreted as meaning that he saw the man entering Glenfada Park, moving east to west, and did not actually see him crossing inside Glenfada Park.

1 FS7.2146

111.137 Turning to his evidence to this Inquiry on this point, Noel McCartney told us that his memory of Bloody Sunday was quite hazy other than of what he had witnessed at the rubble barricade.1

1 M55.2

111.138 He told us that he recalled moving off towards Blucher Street in order to find medical assistance. He did not know which route he took, but had a vague memory that he went through Glenfada Park South.1 While on his way to Blucher Street, he recalled seeing a civilian with a three-quarter-length coat holding a rifle in an upright position. He commented that the light was not good at this point, and told us that he could not describe the person with the gun other than noting that he was male.2 He said he could see the whole length of the rifle, and that the man was not seeking to conceal the weapon with his coat when he saw him.3

1 M55.2; Day 157/109

2 M55.2; Day 157/94

3 Day 157/115

111.139 We are of the view that Noel McCartney did see a rifleman, and though it is difficult to be sure exactly where, we accept his evidence to this Inquiry that it was some distance from the rubble barricade and thus not in the road entrance into Glenfada Park North. To our minds it is probable that Noel McCartney made his way into Glenfada Park South and that when he got to the southern end of Glenfada Park South, or to a position south of this courtyard, he saw the rifleman moving from the entrance into Rossville Street in the south-east corner of Glenfada Park South in the direction of Abbey Street.

111.140 The question remains as to when Noel McCartney saw this rifleman. The representatives of the majority of represented soldiers submitted:1

“It is clear that Mr McCartney saw this gunman in the Abbey Park/Glenfada Park area at a time when soldiers were engaged in that area of the Bogside. Mr McCartney is confident that he saw the man on his way to Blucher Street to obtain medical assistance, shortly after seeing Michael Kelly fall.2 Certainly having reached Blucher Street and then travelled on to Lisfannon Park Mr McCartney says that ‘I heard more shooting ’,3 again confirming the early stage at which he saw the man with a rifle. Mr McCartney was able to confirm in his BSI statement that ‘shooting was still going on ’4 when he reached Blucher Street. ”

1 FS7.2148

2 M55.9 paragraph 6

3 M55.9 paragraph 7

4 M55.2 paragraph 7

111.141 We are sure that Noel McCartney left the entrance into Glenfada Park North before the soldiers came in and started firing, for he could hardly have failed to notice this event had he still been there. We are equally sure that by the time he reached Blucher Street Michael Quinn, injured in Glenfada Park North, had been brought to the first aid post there. It seems to us for this reason that the firing he recalled after having reached Blucher Street is unlikely to have been firing within Glenfada Park North or Abbey Park. As we have noted in the course of our consideration of the events of Sector 4, the shooting in these areas lasted for only a short period, which was not long enough to have allowed Michael Quinn to have been taken to and treated in Blucher Street. Instead it is more likely to have been the late firing by soldiers at Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, which we describe when considering the later events in Sector 3.1As we have already noted, Noel McCartney’s 1972 account does not answer the question of when he encountered the rifleman, other than establishing that it was after he moved from the entrance to the Glenfada Park North car park and before he reached the first aid post at Blucher Street, and his evidence to us does not assist us further. It is not therefore correct to suggest, as the representatives cited above submit, that his evidence makes it clear that he saw the rifleman at the stage when soldiers were engaged in Glenfada Park North or Abbey Park. In our view it is much more likely that he saw the gunman after the casualties had been sustained in that area.

1 Chapters 123 and 124

111.142 We do not know who this gunman was and have no evidence that suggests to us that he was or might have been among those people who were moving across the southern side of Glenfada Park North when the soldiers came in and opened fire. We do not know whether the rifleman seen by Noel McCartney was the same as that seen by Charles McGill or Benn Keaveney.

John Leo Clifford and Kevin Clifford

111.143 John Leo Clifford gave a NICRA statement1which is dated 4th February 1972. In this he recorded that he went to his wife’s aunt’s house in Glenfada Park, then went out and learned that a man and a boy had been shot in William Street, went back to the house but could not get in, so entered Mrs Dunlop’s house (which was next door and on the eastern side of Glenfada Park South) at some point after the lorry leading the demonstration had reached the southern end of Rossville Street. From the house he heard shots and saw bodies near a telephone box, and people cowering against the telephone box. He also described seeing a photographer taking pictures of these casualties.

1 AC66.8

111.144 From this account we have no doubt that John Leo Clifford was describing the situation at the south end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, after the shooting in Sector 5, which we consider in detail elsewhere in this report.1

1 Chapters 115–120

111.145 In his NICRA statement1John Leo Clifford recorded that after this he left the house with a nephew, but gunfire started again … and the bullets passed close to us . He thought that they seemed to come from the direction of Columbcille Court. He subsequently went back into the house, from where he saw Fr Anthony Mulvey moving from the telephone box towards the rubble barricade. John Leo Clifford stated that During this action at no time did I see anyone carrying guns other than the army. I did not hear any nail bombs no [sic] see any petrol bombs.

1 AC66.8

111.146 John Leo Clifford gave a written statement to this Inquiry1but through ill health was unable to give oral evidence. In his written statement John Leo Clifford told us that he was outside when the shooting commenced; whereas his NICRA statement indicates that he was in Mrs Dunlop’s house in Glenfada Park South. He also told us that he went to one house in Glenfada Park South, while in his NICRA statement he described going into two houses. His written evidence to this Inquiry as to how he came to enter Mrs Dunlop’s house also differs from his NICRA statement. In addition, his evidence to this Inquiry as to how he came to enter Mrs Dunlop’s house is very different from his NICRA statement. There are other differences, as can be seen from a comparison of both accounts.2

1 AC66.1

2 AC66.5-6

111.147 In his written evidence to this Inquiry, John Leo Clifford told us:1

“I stayed in [Mrs Dunlop’s] house for a further 10 minutes, although by this stage people were starting to move around the Rossville Street area. As I left [Mrs Dunlop’s] house and turned northwards whilst still in the Glenfada Park South courtyard, I saw about 40 people being lined up and frisked against the southern gable wall of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North by soldiers who were carrying rifles and batons. I cannot remember what was being said at the time. As I was standing there, at approximately the point marked N on the attached map (grid reference 115) [a position close to the pram ramp on the north-east corner of Glenfada Park South]2a civilian gunman ran from the south west corner of Glenfada Park South in a north easterly direction to the north east corner of Glenfada Park South. He was carrying a 303 rifle and wearing a brown suit. He was aged about 26 to 28. He looked around the north east corner of Glenfada Park South but turned round and then ran back in a south easterly direction. I was with my nephew Kevin at the time and he thought that the gunman was a “stickie ”, that is a member of the official IRA. ”

1 AC66.3-4

2 AC66.7

111.148 There are difficulties with this account, though we are sure that John Leo Clifford was doing his best to help us. We have no doubt that, as we describe elsewhere in this report,1the civilians who were arrested in the mouth of the Glenfada Park North car park were removed from the area before people were shot (in Sector 5) on the south side of the Rossville Flats, and that both of these events took place well in advance of the arrival of the ambulance in Rossville Street. Further, John Leo Clifford did not mention seeing people being arrested in Glenfada Park in his NICRA statement.

1 Chapters 113 and 119

111.149 In our view, John Leo Clifford’s NICRA statement is, so far as his movements are concerned, likely to be more accurate than his recollections decades later to this Inquiry. On this basis, we are of the view that his account of seeing a rifleman must relate to the time he ventured out of the house with his nephew, before going back after hearing more firing. His 1972 account is consistent with our findings elsewhere in this report1that some minutes after people had been shot in Sector 5 (and hence even longer after the shooting in Sector 4), and after photographers had taken pictures of these casualties, there was further firing by soldiers at Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. We are of the view that it was this firing that John Leo Clifford heard after he left Mrs Dunlop’s house.

1 Chapter 123

111.150 Before expressing a view on whether John Leo Clifford saw a gunman, we draw attention to the evidence of his nephew.

111.151 John Leo Clifford’s nephew was Kevin Clifford, who told us that he had very little recollection of the events of Bloody Sunday.1However, he did remember taking cover with John Leo Clifford in a house in Glenfada Park South.2He told us:3

“My uncle also refers to seeing a civilian gunman in paragraph 26 of his statement and now that I have read it I remember seeing the guy too, but not where uncle Leo says he was. My uncle refers to a ‘stickie ’ and that’s exactly what I would have called a member of the Official IRA too. I remember seeing a guy with a gun, but I think I saw him near the Bogside Inn, south of Free Derry Corner and around the junction of Westland Street and Lecky Road. He was coming up (northwards) from between Free Derry Corner and the Bogside Inn. The man was hiding the gun on his right hand side under his coat or jacket as if he was trying to disguise it. I don’t know what sort of gun it was, but it was not big enough to be a rifle. There were a lot of people about and someone said something like ‘It’s a stickie ’. The man was walking on his own amongst all these people and only stood out because you could see the gun he was trying to hide and people were saying he was a stickie. I couldn’t describe the man, he was young enough, but I had never seen him before that day and I’ve never seen him since. I just kept on walking. I can’t remember if uncle Leo was with me at the time, but I know I was on my way home. ”

1 AC67.1

2 AC67.1-2

3 AC67.2-3

111.152 If this account is broadly accurate, then a gunman (identified by someone as a “stickie”, ie a member of the Official IRA) was present in the approximate area of Free Derry Corner in the aftermath of the shooting incidents on Bloody Sunday. To our minds this is not inconsistent with John Leo Clifford’s NICRA statement, which ends fairly abruptly after the shooting. His statement that During this action at no time did I see anyone carrying guns other than the army is not in our view necessarily inconsistent with what he told us he had seen, since the word action indicates that he was referring to the period of Army firing, at which stage John Leo Clifford could honestly say that he had not seen any civilian gunmen. He may have seen one shortly thereafter, but decided that it was not relevant, or best ignored, in his NICRA account.

111.153 We are of the view that both John Leo Clifford and his nephew did see a paramilitary gunman on Bloody Sunday. The major, though not the only, difference between the accounts of John Leo Clifford and his nephew is where these witnesses say they saw a gunman. We have considered whether each saw a different gunman, the one in Glenfada Park South and the other south of Free Derry Corner. In the end, however, in view of the fact that much of John Leo Clifford’s evidence to this Inquiry as to where he was differs from his NICRA statement, and our conclusion that the latter is likely to be a more accurate account than the former, we consider it more probable than not that these witnesses saw only one gunman, who was somewhere south of Free Derry Corner. The other differences in their accounts (for example whether they saw a rifle or some smaller weapon) we would attribute to the fact that both were trying to recall what they saw, decades after the event.

111.154 There is nothing that to our minds suggests that the gunman seen by John Leo Clifford and his nephew was or was likely to have been in Glenfada Park North when the soldiers entered that area.

111.155 We deal below with the submission that John Leo Clifford’s evidence was related to the movements and actions of Anthony Martin and OIRA 7.

Allegations of weapons in a vehicle or vehicles in Glenfada Park North

Evidence of members of the Official IRA

111.156 In the course of our discussion of the events of Sector 1,1we referred to the notes made by John Barry of the Sunday Times Insight Team of an interview with OIRA 1.2In that context, we were principally concerned with the circumstances in which OIRA 1 fired a shot with a rifle from Columbcille Court at soldiers on the opposite side of William Street, a shot which hit a drainpipe on the eastern side of the Presbyterian church. As we have noted above, although OIRA 1 denied that he had given any form of formal interview to John Barry, we concluded not only that he did so, but also that in all essential respects John Barry accurately recorded in his note what he had been told by OIRA 1 about the latter’s activities on Bloody Sunday.

1 Chapter 19 2AOIRA1.1-2

111.157 As we point out in our discussion of the events of Sector 1,1OIRA 1 told John Barry that on Bloody Sunday he and OIRA 2 had collected the rifle which he later fired from a car in Glenfada Park. This differed from the account that OIRA 1 gave to this Inquiry, which was that on Bloody Sunday they picked up the rifle, which had previously been hidden, from Columbcille Court. However, in both the accounts OIRA 1 stated that after firing, and after becoming involved in a confrontation with a number of people shortly afterwards, he and OIRA 2 took the rifle back to a car in Glenfada Park North.

1 Chapter 19

111.158 We set out below the relevant parts of John Barry’s note. It will be seen that this includes the passage quoted earlier in this chapter concerning the firing of a couple of shots in the car park and shots said to have been fired from Columbcille Court:1

“Said that no approach about guns had been made to the Officials. Said that the main emphasis by the Officials that day was up in Creggan. Two sections of 16 men – both the sections being Creggan ones, I gathered – were gathered in cars at the back of the Creggan. He said they were waiting for a possible Army assault.

The Bogside section was under his charge. He had the available arms stored in the boot of a car in Glenfada. (I think he said it was a green Avenger, but my notes dont record that).

[The notes then record OIRA 1 telling John Barry about his movements on the day, his shot at the soldiers close to the Presbyterian church, and the confrontation that followed between OIRA 1 and OIRA 2 and members of the Provisional IRA. We have discussed this part of the notes in Chapter 19.]

OIRA 1 then has very hazy chronology. He went back to Glenfada, put the rifle back in the boot of the car, and waited rather at a loose end. Then he either a) saw Kelly’s body, or b) saw the Saracens coming in. From other sources, the latter is the only conceivable one:

OIRA 1 was appalled. Someone shouted to him, and he went round the gable to see. Behold, the Saracens approaching. He sped back into Glenfada, and shouted to them to get the car out. He thought one of the Saracens would come into Glenfada and catch them red-handed. There were five or six Stickies around the car, and they couldn’t get the thing out in time. OIRA 1 said to abandon it, and get the arms out of the boot. They did: the arms consisted of a Sten, a carbine, two 303s and a .22 automatic.

He toyed with the idea of trying to make a fight of it, but rejected the idea. ‘The men werent in position ’. Shouted to everyone to retreat. All didd, except for one – who ran up to what OIRA 1 swears was the north-west corner of Glenfada, that is the corner towards Wm St and furthest from the flats. OIRA 1 says he got up on a balcony – on the front of C. Court, he said the bloke told him later, – and got in a couple of shots with the 22 automatic.

OIRA 1 says he knows that a man from the Creggan section of the Officials got in a couple of shots in the carpark from a .38 pistol. Those, says OIRA 1, are the only three sets of shots that the Officials got off before the troops opened up.

OIRA 1 seems to have blown his mind at this point. Because he relates in great detail how he saw Micky Kelly – a young cousin of his – fall behind the gable. Pressed, he says that what he saw was a crowd around him, a figure in a white shirt, he thinks. But he insists that he then saw, obliquely, three figures standing at the barricade and a burst of automatic – ‘machine gun ’ – fire, at which the three fell – adding austerely: ‘Whether they were hit or not I could not say’.

He says that there was then the buzz that troops were coming up to Glenfada. He ran for it across Glenfada, out to the Abbey Park entrance. He says that there were two or three people in front of him, and he is convinced he was the last person to make it. He says there were five or six behind him. Says the person first behind him was Wray, whom he claims to have known.

Says there was a burst of firing. Says as he was running across he saw a soldier at both northern entrances of Glenfada – the soldier at the R St side with a Sterling, but he doesnt remember what the other soldier was carrying. ‘I put my head down and ran ’.

He heard the burst of firing as he got into the Abbey Park alleyway.

He cut into number 4, Abbey Park, where there were about 15 people. Was told ‘There was a wounded man here, shot. He’s gone to hospital ’.

He ran over to his Grandma’s place, on the other side of the Bog Road. My note says that she said ‘Jesus, no don’t. ’ The next note says that there were shots fired from the walls, but not at him. I think, but its a pure guess, that she was warning him not to cross the street or something.

He met one of his fellow from Glenfada with a sporting .303 down his trouser leg. The fellow asked him ‘Shall I get down there and have a dab? ’ nodding towards Glenfada. This conversation was taking place around Lisfannon Park. OIRA 1 said no, more people will be killed.

[The notes then record OIRA 1 telling John Barry about seeing the injured ‘Big Micky ’ Doherty at Vinny Coyle’s house, before going to his own mother’s house in order to reassure her.]

Went into Cable Street. Met OIRA 3. Who said ‘Where’s the weapons? ’ OIRA 1 said they were safe in the Bog. OIRA 1 indicated that OIRA 3 wanted to have a go, or at least was surrounded by people who wanted to have a go. But he was dissuaded.

OIRA 1 then headed for the far corner of Blucher Street, to find another of his Glenfada guys still with a weapon. Asked what he should do with it, OIRA 1 replied ‘Get it dumped ’.

OIRA 1 says he did hear shooting at this stage from their side but he doesnt know where it came from. ”

1 AOIRA1.1-2

111.159 According to our interpretation of this account, OIRA 1 had the available arms of the Bogside section of the Official IRA in a car, which could have been a green Avenger, in Glenfada ”, which in our view meant Glenfada Park North. When he returned from firing the shot at soldiers at the Presbyterian church he put the rifle that he had used in the boot. Then on realising that Army vehicles were coming into the Bogside, and fearing that one might come into Glenfada , he and five or six other Stickies (a nickname for members of the Official IRA) tried but failed to get the car out. Instead, they abandoned the car and took the arms out of the boot. These consisted of a Sten gun, a carbine, two .303 rifles and a .22 automatic. OIRA 1 shouted to everyone to retreat and all did save for one who got in a couple of shots with a .22 automatic from Columbcille Court. OIRA 1 himself, according to this account, fled from Glenfada Park North through the entrance to Abbey Park. He later encountered two men, both of whom are associated with Glenfada in the notes. The first was, around Lisfannon Park ”, with a sporting .303 down his trouser leg , while the other was in Blucher Street, still with a weapon .

111.160 In our consideration of the events of Sector 1,1we also discussed the article, published on 23rd April 1972 in the Sunday Telegraph, in which Gerard Kemp reported on an interview that he had conducted with a member of the Official IRA who fired on Bloody Sunday. We are sure that the interview was with OIRA 1. We are also of the view that the quotations contained in the article faithfully reproduced what OIRA 1 told Gerard Kemp.

1 Paragraphs 19.18–19

111.161 The article recorded, in OIRA 1’s own words, his account of his shot at the soldiers close to the Presbyterian church. He continued:1

“After I fired that one shot I went back to my car and put the rifle in the boot. Ten to 15 minutes later the Paras moved up and I told our boys to get their weapons out of their cars.

Only a few of us were there. Most of the I.R.A. were up on the Creggan because we expected the Army to take advantage of the march and move in up there.

One guy got on to a balcony and fired at the Paras. Someone else fired with the pistol. I was by the barricade in Rossville Street next and saw three civilians go down. They were cracking away all over the show mostly army S.L.R.s (self-loading rifles). We started running. James Wray was shot dead just behind me. ”

1 L210

111.162 OIRA 1 is not recorded in this article as having made any reference to seeing armed members of the Official IRA after he left Glenfada Park North.

111.163 In his written evidence to this Inquiry, OIRA 1 gave the following account of taking the weapon that he had fired to a car in Glenfada Park:1

“… the other volunteer and I … made our way through the back streets [from Columbcille Court] to Glenfada Park North where a car was parked along the eastern wall of the flats which bordered Rossville Street. The car was parked about half way along on the inside of the courtyard on the eastern side. It was parked lengthways ie. north/south not east/west. I have never seen any photographs of this from the day of the march, and I could therefore be wrong, but I am pretty certain that that was where the car was. It stayed there until after the end of the march. I put the rifle in the boot of the car and locked the car and took away the keys. I cannot recall what I did with the keys now. I am not sure now whether the other volunteer who had been with me was still with me. I think that on the way I may have lost him at some point around the time I put the gun in the car. It made sense for us to split up after a shot had been fired. ”

1 AOIRA1.28

111.164 OIRA 1 told us that apart from the rifle that he had used, there was no other weapon in the car.1He denied those parts of John Barry’s notes and Gerard Kemp’s article that suggested that there was a group of Official IRA volunteers in Glenfada Park, that he ordered them to remove weapons from a car or cars, and that he met armed Officials after he had fled from there.2

1 AOIRA1.33; Day 395/97-98; Day 395/118

2 AOIRA1.33-35; Day 395/117; Day 395/122; Day 395/124-125; Day 395/140; Day 396/104

111.165 OIRA 1’s evidence to us was that after dumping the rifle he moved to the southern end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North. He told us he recalled seeing the arrival of soldiers in Rossville Street, hearing shots, and seeing a person fall at the rubble barricade. He told us that on realising that soldiers had entered Glenfada Park North he fled the area through the alleyway leading to Abbey Park.1

1 AOIRA1.29-30

111.166 OIRA 2 stated in his written evidence to this Inquiry that he accompanied OIRA 1 back to Glenfada Park North after the latter had fired at the soldiers close to the Presbyterian church. He told us that OIRA 1 put the .303 rifle that he had used into the boot of a car that was parked on the eastern side of the car park, and that OIRA 1 locked the boot. The two men decided that they could not move the car because of all of the people in the vicinity, and so they decided to split up, with OIRA 2 leaving the area via Rossville Street and Free Derry Corner. OIRA 2 stated that the only weapon that was in the car in Glenfada Park North was the rifle fired by OIRA 1.1

1 AOIRA2.16; AOIRA2.21-22

111.167 Another member of the Official IRA, OIRA 7, also told this Inquiry1that he was present when OIRA 1 and OIRA 2 placed a rifle in a car in Glenfada Park North.

1 AOIRA7.7-9

111.168 In his written statement to this Inquiry he gave this account:1

“There were few people in Glenfada Park North at the time. The march was still going on, and a crowd had gathered at Free Derry Corner to listen to the speeches.

I don’t know who suggested that we should put the rifle in a car, but I knew that we wanted to get rid of it. I am not now sure about the sequence of events, but it is my recollection that all three of us went to a car in Glenfada Park North, and put the rifle in the boot of that car. I do not know if the weapon had come from a dump, or from the car, and do not know if there was a dump in the area. I did not see the weapon until I was at the stairwell. I have no idea where the keys of the car came from or the sequence of events. Nor do I remember where the car had come from, or how it had come to be there. I know I did not drive it down or put it where it was. The rifle was put in the boot of the car (and not on the back seat), and once it was there, it was over and done with. I do not recall there being anything else in the back or boot of the car. From that point on the rifle did not surface again. We could not drive the car out of Glenfada because of the people in Rossville Street.

I am not sure where the other two volunteers went. I certainly did not go with them and did not hang around for long. There were no other volunteers around. No one approached us to ask what had happened. It did not make sense to stick together. I understand from Eversheds that neither of the other two volunteers now mention me being involved in the incident, and its immediate aftermath. I nevertheless was involved, as I have described.

I have been asked where the car was in Glenfada Park North. It was on the eastern side. I have marked its approximate position on the map at point E. I assume it had been driven in previously and left there. The car was facing north, ie towards us as we came into the square. Over the years I have been told it was a dark coloured car and possibly either an Avenger or a Cortina. They were two of the newest cars out then and it always made sense to use a car that worked! This is therefore probably true. I think it may have been an Avenger, because I know you did not lock the boot of a Cortina which had a push button, whereas the Avenger self locked and you had to use a key to open it. I am asked who left with the keys. I do not recall. It did not seem important at the time and is a detail I do not recall. I comment on this further later. ”

1 AOIRA7.9-10

111.169 OIRA 7 had in fact marked the position of the car on an aerial photograph rather than a map.1According to him, the car was parked about halfway down the eastern side of Glenfada Park North, facing north, ie towards Columbcille Court. This is consistent with the evidence of OIRA 1 and OIRA 2 to this Inquiry.2OIRA 7 said in his written statement that he did not think that the car was moved at any stage during the afternoon.3

1 AOIRA7.26; Day 398/47

2 AOIRA1.28; AOIRA2.16; Day 392/67; E24.11

3 AOIRA7.17

111.170 In response to the John Barry interview notes, OIRA 7 stated that there were no arms in the car in Glenfada Park North apart from the rifle that he, OIRA 1 and OIRA 2 put there. He also said that he was certain that there were not four or five OIRA members about in Glenfada Park , and that that he did not recall any attempt being made to move the car out of the area.1

1 AOIRA7.23; Day 398/51-53; Day 398/160

111.171 As we have discussed during our consideration of events in Sector 1,1OIRA 7 told us that he joined OIRA 1 and OIRA 2 in Columbcille Court during the confrontation that followed OIRA 1’s shot at soldiers close to the Presbyterian church. For reasons we gave there, we were not convinced that OIRA 7 was present at this time. We are not sure whether at some later stage he either joined OIRA 1 and OIRA 2 and went with them to the car in Glenfada Park North, or met them there. Neither OIRA 1 nor OIRA 2 mentions the presence of OIRA 7 in Glenfada Park North and OIRA 1 told us that he did not recall seeing OIRA 7 at that time,2but in view of our doubts about the reliability of the evidence given by OIRA 1 and OIRA 2, this is not conclusive.

1 Paragraph 19.65 2Day 396/53

111.172 OIRA 7 told us that after the .303 rifle had been placed in the car, he left Glenfada Park North by the north-eastern exit and went into Rossville Street, where he remained until Support Company entered the Bogside. He said that having heard a live shot he went back into and through Glenfada Park North, leaving the area by the alleyway leading to Abbey Park.1We return below, when considering the evidence of Anthony Martin, to OIRA 7’s account of his later thoughts of returning to the car to get the rifle.

1 AOIRA7.10-14

111.173 It is our view that what OIRA 1 told John Barry and Gerard Kemp about the presence of other weapons and their removal when soldiers came into the Bogside is much closer to the truth than is his evidence (and that of OIRA 2 and OIRA 7) to this Inquiry, that the rifle that had been fired in Columbcille Court was the only weapon in the car. As we have pointed out in the course of our consideration of the events of Sector 1,1we have concluded that in other material respects neither OIRA 1 nor OIRA 2 told us the truth. In our view there were a number of weapons in the car, probably those described to John Barry; there were more Official IRA members present than just OIRA 1 and OIRA 2; and some at least of the weapons were removed shortly before the soldiers came into Glenfada Park North. We have considered earlier in this chapter whether any of those weapons was then fired and where this might have occurred.

1 Chapter 19

111.174 It will have been noted that according to Gerard Kemp’s article, there was more than one car in Glenfada Parkf North. We consider this matter below.

Civilian, photographic and film footage evidence

111.175 A little earlier in this chapter, we referred to the interview that Michael Quinn gave to the Sunday Times journalists Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobson. In the notes of the interview it was recorded that Michael Quinn had given a number of pieces of information, under guaranty of total anonymity .1We have already discussed the evidence relating to nail bombs that was included under this heading. Now, we turn to the first item that was recorded:2

“1. there were two ‘IRA cars’ parked in glenfadda park. he knows they were IRA men, known in the district. two were in one, unknown in the other. he saw no guns. ”

1 AQ11.12

2 AQ11.12

111.176 In his written evidence to this Inquiry, Michael Quinn told us:1

“At the end [of the interview] I recall they wanted to put certain things to me. I don’t recall now, but having now seen their notes … they put it to me that there were IRA cars in Glenfada Park North. There weren’t any, and I am very upset and concerned that the notes I have seen have wrongly recorded me as saying that there were IRA cars in Glenfada Park. ”

1 AQ11.26

111.177 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Michael Quinn added that he had no recollection of seeing any cars in Glenfada Park North.1

1 Day 169/99

111.178 Peter Pringle told us in his oral evidence to this Inquiry that he and Philip Jacobson would not normally prompt a witness in the manner described by Michael Quinn, even though he thought that they had heard from other sources about IRA cars in Glenfada Park North.1Philip Jacobson agreed that they would not generally lead witnesses.2Other than this, the two men were unable to assist further on the note about the IRA cars.

1 Day 190/63-64

2 Day 191/149

111.179 We are sure from the evidence discussed above that there was at least one IRA car in Glenfada Park North. However, we are unable to decide whether the information about two cars was given by Michael Quinn to Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobson, or whether the journalists had learned this from another source.

111.180 The Sunday Times notes record Michael Quinn referring to two IRA cars in Glenfada Park. Gerard Kemp’s article in the Sunday Telegraph, which we discussed above, quotes his source, who we are sure was OIRA 1, as saying that he told our boys to get their weapons out of their cars” (emphasis added).1

1 L210

111.181 In this connection the representatives of some of the soldiers made submissions, based on an examination of the footage filmed from the helicopter that flew above the Bogside on Bloody Sunday and the photographic evidence obtained by this Inquiry, to the effect that five cars could be seen in Glenfada Park North at various stages shortly before and shortly after the events of Sector 4, and that two moved position at some stage during this period. Although these representatives submitted that there was, as OIRA 7 had said, a car parked on a north–south axis close to and about halfway along the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, they did not suggest that the evidence showed that this car was one of those that moved.1A still from the helicopter footage shows a car parked in the position described by OIRA 7.2

1 FS8.1220-1227

2 E24.11

111.182 One of the most significant photographs that was referred to in this submission is reproduced below. It shows two cars in the south-east corner of Glenfada Park North, one of which is parked facing east across the marked parking bays.1

1 As discussed in Chapter 176, the provenance of this photograph is unknown, but in our view it was taken on Bloody Sunday.

111.183 We have no doubt that the car shown nearest the camera was in the same place throughout the events of the day, as it was supported on bricks.1However, we accept that it appears from the photographs and helicopter footage that the car shown parked across the marked bays was moved to that position at some stage during the afternoon.2OIRA 7 told this Inquiry that he did not know anything about the movements of this car, and denied that the Official IRA car with the rifle in its boot was moved after he, OIRA 1 and OIRA 2 returned to it from Columbcille Court.3He also said that he had not mistaken the position of the Official IRA car, and that it was certainly not the one shown parked across the marked bays in the photograph above.4The evidence of ORIA 1 and OIRA 2 was to the effect that the car they used to dump the rifle was not moved after they left it.5

1 Day 155/53-56; AO1.5

2 FS8.1222

3 Day 399/65-66

4 Day 399/77

5 AOIRA1.28; AOIRA2.16

111.184 The soldiers’ representatives made the following submission about the car that was parked across the marked bays:1

“It is a very odd time for a car to have been moved, stranger still if it was moved once 1 Para had deployed. Added to this is the fact that the car has been parked across the hatched lines of the parking spaces, rather than within a parking space, certainly suggestive of the fact that the car was parked in some haste.

… both the fact that this car was moved at such a late stage and parked in an unusual manner are grounds for suspicion as to what purpose this car was being used for. ”

1 FS8.1223

111.185 These submissions appear to suggest the possibility either that this car was a second IRA vehicle in Glenfada Park North, or that it was the IRA vehicle that had originally been parked along the eastern side of the car park.1

1 FS8.1223

111.186 We have found nothing that suggests to us that this vehicle was likely to be the one that had been on the eastern side of Glenfada Park North, since it is equally possible that this was simply a vehicle that someone had tried to drive out of Glenfada Park North, abandoning the attempt when soldiers came into the Bogside. The soldiers’ representatives submitted that John Barry’s interview with OIRA 1 strongly suggests that an unsuccessful attempt was made to move the vehicle, relying on the following words in the notes of the interview: “There were five or six Stickies around the car, and they couldn’t get the thing out in time. OIRA1 said to abandon it, and get the arms out of the boot. 1To our minds, however, this passage can equally be read as indicating that a decision was made to abandon the car without attempting to move it.

1 FS8.1223-1224

111.187 The same representatives also made the following submission about the two figures shown in the centre of the car park in the photograph:1

“The Tribunal will be aware of the two figures apparently running away from this vehicle [the car parked across the marked bays, which these representatives have suggested might have been used by paramilitaries], one of whom is carrying some type of object…

It is not clear what this person is carrying. The image is consistent with a firearm carried under a coat or in a holdall. Further the photo is more consistent with the man carrying the object moving not towards the south-west exit but towards the north west exit, running away from the position of car 1.”

1 FS8.1224

111.188 The following is a blown-up portion of the photograph, showing the two figures:

111.189 The same representatives also drew attention to OIRA 7’s written evidence to this Inquiry, in which he identified himself as the figure with the light jacket shown in the middle of the car park in this photograph.1 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, OIRA 7 changed his evidence on this point, telling us that he had made a mistake when giving his statement as a result of misidentifying himself on television footage taken earlier in the day.2 The soldiers’ representatives submitted that the Tribunal should be very slow to accept OIRA 7’s volte-face at face value , and said that it was perhaps no coincidence that his change of evidence came after OIRA 1’s oral evidence to this Inquiry, in which it was pointed out that the person in the photograph appeared to be carrying something.3

1 AOIRA7.13

2 Day 398/27-29; Day 398/76-77; Day 398/171-172; Day 399/59-61; FS8.1225-1227

3 FS8.1225-1227

111.190 In our view it is not possible to infer from the photograph, which of course shows only an instant of time, that the figures were running away from the vehicle, in the sense of having departed from it, or that either figure was moving towards the north-west corner of Glenfada Park North, or that the figure on the right was carrying anything other than a coat or some other innocent object.

111.191 On the available evidence, we are unable to say more than that the possibility exists that the figure carrying a coat was OIRA 7, bearing in mind that we have doubts whether he was, as he asserted, in Glenfada Park North with OIRA 1 and OIRA 2. In addition, we cannot exclude the further possibility that, whoever the figure was, he was carrying a firearm under the coat.

111.192 We should note at this point that we have considered the evidence given by David Mills, a BBC producer who was sent to Northern Ireland to cover the Widgery Inquiry.1In his written statement to us he recorded the following:2

“During my research I also discovered that some Officials who were in the Bogside when the Paratroopers came in panicked, and tried to get out of the Bogside in a car. I was also told that in their haste to get away, the car had reversed into a wall. I was probably first told about this by Peter Pringle, a journalist with The Sunday Times Insight team. I was impressed by his methodical approach, and the accuracy and reliability of his sources of information. I would probably also have done some of my own research to check the details relating to this incident. I have a vague memory of seeing a damaged wall in a small courtyard. I have been shown a map of the Bogside and I think the wall in question was somewhere near the West side of Glenfada Park North. ”

1 M108.1

2 M108.3-4

111.193 David Mills gave a similar account of a car being driven into a wall by members of the Official IRA in a letter dated 20th April 1972 to Colonel Maurice Tugwell, the staff officer responsible for information policy at Headquarters Northern Ireland, whom David Mills had met during the course of his assignment in Northern Ireland.1In the letter, David Mills wrote that it was almost certain there were a car load of Officials in Glenfada Park as the paratroopers came in, and that these men took their weapons with them as they fled, abandoning the vehicle. He added that three of the Officials fired from near Free Derry Corner Minutes after , while the fourth circled around and was shot at by Soldier G. or F..2In his written evidence to this Inquiry, David Mills expressed surprise at the account of the firing that he gave to Colonel Tugwell and said that his recollection was that only one member of the group near Free Derry Corner fired, and that he did so much later .3In his oral evidence he stated that he considered this aspect of the letter to be inaccurate .4

1 M108.1

2 M108.9

3 M108.8

4 Day 235/43-44

111.194 During his oral evidence to this Inquiry, David Mills was asked about the source of his information. He said that he was fairly sure it started with Peter [Pringle] and it was confirmed by others in the Bogside I spoke to .1Asked on what evidence he had based his account of a fourth Official who had circled around and was shot at by Soldier G or F, he said that I think it was almost certainly from Peter Pringle. 2He also told us that he no longer believed this part of his account to be accurate.3

1 Day 235/43; Day 235/23

2 Day 235/59

3 Day 235/43; the transcript records David Mills saying that it was accurate, but in view of the context this seems to be a transcript error, as soldiers’ representatives appear to acknowledge (FS7.2120).

111.195 David Mills also said to us, in relation to his account of a car being driven into a wall, that his account was not going to be part of my programme and so there was no cause for me to investigate it very closely and it was really a bit of gossip that I was passing on .1

1 Day 235/24

111.196 There is no reference to an Official IRA car crashing into a wall in the Sunday Times article of 23rd April 1972,1or in the extant notes of the interview between John Barry and OIRA 1.2Apart from David Mills we have found no other evidence that suggests that an Official IRA car crashed into a wall in Glenfada Park North.

1 L211-214

2 AOIRA1.1-2

111.197 David Mills was asked whether he had any information to suggest that any Official IRA members had fired in Glenfada Park before fleeing. His answer was No, certainly they did not fire before fleeing ”.1

1 Day 235/25

111.198 In our view it would be unwise to rely on David Mills’ accounts, save where they are supported by the Sunday Times material.

Anthony Martin

111.199 We have referred to Anthony Martin’s evidence in the course of considering the events of Sector 4. As we have noted, he gave an interview to the Sunday Times Insight Team,1in the course of which he described assisting those taking casualties from Glenfada Park North to houses in Abbey Park. This account continued:2

“i then went out into fahan st direction asking people to get a priest into the two houses where we had taken the wounded. i met [Michael] canavan in fahan st. and he was shouting to some people to get some of the cars parked there and back them into abbey park to get the wounded to hospital. about this time i met an ira man and he told there were two rifles in a car – a green avenger – parked in glenfada park and he wanted me to help him get to it. i learnt later that the rifles had been removed before the shooting started. after that i moved out of the area to vinny coil’s house with a k. of m. girl. we [w]anted to take shelter there but he told us to go away because the helicopter circling overhead was watching his house. so I then walked home. ”

1 AM24.3

2 AM24.5

111.200 In his written statement to this Inquiry1Anthony Martin gave us a similar account of this incident:

“I headed out of Glenfada Park North and met the man I knew who was involved in the IRA. He explained that there was a Green Avenger car parked in Glenfada Park North that had rifles in the boot. He asked me if I would help him go and collect them. I was so angry by that point that I said I would take one of the rifles myself and do something. We went back into Glenfada Park South and made our way to the entrance at the east of Glenfada Park South looking into Glenfada Park North to see if it was safe to go in. The car was in the position I have marked on the attached map at grid reference I14 [a position about halfway along the eastern side of Glenfada Park North].2The soldiers were still there and we decided it was too risky to approach the car.

I wish to make it clear that the reason the car was parked in Glenfada Park North that day was completely incidental to the Civil Rights March. Until I met the IRA man, I had no idea it was there. It would have been there to store guns in the way I have described earlier [see below]. I also wish to make it clear that I saw no civilian gunmen or nail bombers in the area. ”

1 AM24.12-13

2 AM24.23

111.201 Anthony Martin’s reference to stor[ing] guns in the way I have described earlier was to an earlier section of the same statement in which he said that:1

“I know that some IRA guns were kept in cars dotted around the city, in order to avoid being seized in army raids. Everyone knew that this was their standard tactic, as houses could be raided and guns seized. There were no such cars placed to store guns for use during the march. ”

1 AM24.9

111.202 Anthony Martin’s evidence is relevant to that of OIRA 7. As we have discussed above, OIRA 7 told this Inquiry that he was with OIRA 1 and OIRA 2 when they placed the .303 rifle that OIRA 1 had fired into the boot of a car in Glenfada Park North. In his written statement to us, OIRA 7 said that he later considered going back to the car in order to get the rifle. His evidence was that this happened after he had returned to the Abbey Park alleyway, having followed people carrying a stretcher from Abbey Park to an ambulance that was parked in Rossville Street.1If accurate, this would mean that he did not contemplate this course of action until well after Anti-Tank Platoon had withdrawn from Glenfada Park North. In his written evidence to this Inquiry, OIRA 7 told us:2

“I do not now know how I thought I was going to get to the rifle. After all the rifle had been put in the boot of the car and I do not now know whether the car was open or whether the boot was locked. If the boot was locked I would have felt a fool going across Glenfada Park to a locked car and this makes me think that I may have had the keys of the car with me. I do not know how. I don’t think it was me who brought the car down to Glenfada Park, but maybe I was with someone who did. Were the keys handed to me? I do not now know. One of the other two volunteers may have gave me the keys to bring the car up to the Creggan later as I was a volunteer and they were more senior to me. All I remember is that I intended to get the rifle so I think it more probable than not that I had the keys of the car.

However, there was a heated discussion about the sense of me going into Glenfada Park North and I did not make it as far as the car. I do not recall any particular conversation or confrontation and certainly not something like I have described earlier relating to the incident at the stairwell in Columbcille Court. I remember someone saying it was madness and I would only get myself killed. I was angry enough to have gone to the car and got the rifle and would have felt justified in getting and using it, but I was held back. Anyway, the army were withdrawing by then. I cannot recall now if I was pulled back or was persuaded it was too dangerous and that we should look after the casualties.

I have been referred to the evidence of Tony Martin. I know who he is. I do not remember seeing him, and do not recall discussions with him, but from what he says, he must be referring to me. I was totally focussed on not wanting to be talked out of it or be stopped. If Tony Martin says he was there I accept that. Whatever the reason, wiser counsel prevailed as there were still soldiers in the square, and I made no attempt to get at the rifle in the car. The car was still in Glenfada Park North when I intended to go and get the rifle. ”

1 AOIRA7.15-16

2 AOIRA7.16

111.203 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, OIRA 7 said that Anthony Martin was wrong in thinking that there was more than one rifle in the car, or that these rifles had been removed before the shooting began. He also thought that the discussion about returning to the car took place in the alleyway between Glenfada Park North and Abbey Park, and not in Glenfada Park South.1When asked whether the soldiers were still present at the time when he went to get the weapon, OIRA 7 said that there were still some soldiers around … I believe they were still in Glenfada Park, although I could not see them .2

1 Day 398/98-100

2 Day 399/23

111.204 In the light of the evidence discussed above, particularly that of the account given by OIRA 1 to John Barry and Gerard Kemp, we are of the view, as we have said, that there were weapons in the car in Glenfada Park North, which were removed soon after the soldiers had come into the Bogside. We also consider that Anthony Martin’s evidence about meeting an IRA man is probably correct and that this man did ask Anthony Martin for help in collecting rifles from a car in Glenfada Park North.

111.205 We are not sure whether that man was OIRA 7. If OIRA 7 had been in Glenfada Park North and seen the weapons being removed, he could hardly have gone back later with the intention of collecting them. We have already expressed our doubts whether OIRA 7 was in Glenfada Park North at this stage. However, it remains possible that he was the person whom Anthony Martin met.

111.206 We should note at this point that the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers submitted, under the general heading of Civilian Evidence of Riflemen in Sector 4 ”, that:1

“The gunman seen by Mr [John Leo] Clifford was of course in a similar area, at a similar time as the IRA man from the OIRA Creggan section described by Mr Anthony Martin. OIRA 7 denied when questioned either seeing the man Mr Clifford describes or being involved in the incident himself. ”

1 FS7.2136

111.207 We have already expressed the view that what John Leo Clifford saw was probably a gunman in the area south of Free Derry Corner. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that the man Anthony Martin met was armed. On the contrary, in his oral evidence to this Inquiry Anthony Martin told us, and we accept, that the man was not armed.1Accordingly, in our view there is nothing to suggest that Anthony Martin and John Leo Clifford were referring to the same man.

1 Day 176/102-103

111.208 We are unable to determine whether there was more than one IRA car in Glenfada Park North. Apart from the reference to cars in the Sunday Times notes and Gerard Kemp’s article, to which we have referred above, there is a reference in Paul Mahon’s interview of Anthony Martin to a couple of cars, though the transcript of the interview does not expressly indicate whether Anthony Martin was referring to cars used by the IRA.1It remains possible that there was more than one IRA car in Glenfada Park North, though on the evidence that we have seen there seems to have been IRA activity in relation to only one car.

1 X4.18.75

Paul Mahon

111.209 Paul Mahon conducted research into the events of Bloody Sunday, in part by interviewing a large number of relevant witnesses. We have referred to the material he obtained in this way throughout the course of this report. In his written statement to this Inquiry Paul Mahon gave the following evidence about an alleged conversation that he had with Liam Wray, the brother of Jim Wray who was shot and killed in Glenfada Park North:1

“In relation to matters concerning Glenfada Park, I was told by Liam Wray that many years after Bloody Sunday he was approached by a former member of the Official IRA who told him that he was sorry about what had happened to his brother, Jim on Bloody Sunday. He explained that he, and another member of the Official IRA were exiting Glenfada Park North through the alleyway into Abbey Park, carrying unconcealed weapons. He explained that the crowd rushing towards the exit at the time had held back at the sight of the two armed Official IRA men. The Official IRA man told Liam Wray that they both got through the alleyway into Abbey Park and within seconds of their exit heard the gunfire directed towards that position. I asked Liam Wray if he would provide the identity of this man or if it would be possible for him to speak to me and he said that there would be no possibility of this man speaking to me. ”

1 AM19.14

111.210 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Paul Mahon said that Liam Wray had probably given this information to him in 1999. He told us that he had never conducted a formal interview with Liam Wray or made a note of this conversation, though it was something I was not going to forget, anyway ”. Paul Mahon also said that he never found out the name of the former member of the Official IRA in question.1

1 Day 411/124-127

111.211 It was suggested to Paul Mahon that he was either mistaken or lying about what he said Liam Wray had told him, or that he had in fact wrongly attributed to Liam Wray what he had learned or inferred from John Barry’s notes of his interview with OIRA 1 or from the Sunday Times Insight article itself. Paul Mahon denied these suggestions and told us that at the time he had spoken to Liam Wray he had not seen John Barry’s notes, though he would have read the Sunday Times article and may have discussed it with Liam Wray.1

1 Day 411/130-135; Day 412/112-116; Day 412/120

111.212 Liam Wray made a supplementary written statement to this Inquiry, in which he made the following observations about the claims made by Paul Mahon in the extract from his statement quoted above:1

“What Paul Mahon says in this paragraph is a complete and utter fabrication. I have never been approached by any person, either civilian or purported current or former member of any paramilitary organisation apologising to me for being in any way responsible for the murder of my brother and I have never given Paul Mahon any such account.

The only knowledge I have ever had, other than that contained in material generated through this Inquiry, about IRA activity in and around Glenfada Park derives from the Sunday Times article published on 23rd April 1972 (now in the Inquiry material at L211-214). My late father had retained a copy of this article since its publication and had passed it on to me in later years. The article makes reference to an Official IRA leader speaking about guns taken from a car in Glenfada Park by men who retreated through the alley into Abbey Park. (L214, col 2). I had never heard of this story other than in the Sunday Times account and I have certainly never spoken to anyone who claimed to be involved in such an episode. I am certain that Mahon and I would have discussed the contents of this article during our many discussions.

I reject in its entirety Paul Mahon’s claim that I ever said anything to him of the nature set out in this paragraph. He is either genuinely mistaken or telling a deliberate lie about his recollection of conversations we had arising out of the Sunday Times article. ”

1 AW29.25

111.213 The relevant parts of the Sunday Times Insight article1were in the following terms:

“One of the leaders of the Bogside official IRA section told us that one of their cars was parked in the Glenfada courtyard that afternoon and inside was a Sten gun, a carbine, two .303’s and a .22 rifle. When Support Company roared down Rossville Street, he ordered the car out immediately – he thought they would be caught red-handed. But his men – about half a dozen – couldn’t get the car out in time so he says they hurriedly unloaded it there. He shouted to them to retreat. And they did – through the alley into Abbey Park.

We can confirm there was an IRA gunman in [the alleyway between Columbcille Court and Glenfada Park North]. As the IRA men in the courtyard unloaded the weapons, one of them disobeyed the order to retreat and ran up out of the northwest corner of the courtyard towards the advancing soldiers. He was armed with a .22 rifle, and he fired two or three shots. He could have fired at any of the advancing soldiers. It is possible that Soldier G saw him at some stage. ”

1 L211

111.214 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Liam Wray repeated that what Paul Mahon had said was untrue.1His wife, Doreen Rice-Wray, also told us in a written statement2that her husband had never mentioned such an event occurring, despite the innumerable discussions regarding all aspects of the events of Bloody Sunday that they had engaged in over many years. She said that If it had happened I have absolutely no doubt that Liam would have mentioned it to me ”.

1 Day 416/74-75

2 AW33.1

111.215 As will have been seen, there is an irreconcilable conflict between Paul Mahon and Liam Wray on this matter. It should be noted that Paul Mahon held no brief for 1 PARA and on more than one occasion expressed his opinion that soldiers of this battalion murdered the people killed on Bloody Sunday, including Jim Wray.1He also told us, and we accept, that he did not regard it as his job to support the republican movement or the republican cause:2

“That was not my function; that was not my job. My function was to research into these events, to research into this murder that took place, to be dispassionate about it.

I wanted to talk to the IRA. I wanted to find out what their involvement was in Derry. It would not have been right if I was only interested in the activities of the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment. What sort of researcher would I really be then? Where would my credibility lie as a researcher if I was only interested in one side of the story? I always made it very, very plain to the families that what I wanted, what I wanted was the whole truth, hook, line and sinker, warts and all. That, to many, many people in the north of Ireland is not acceptable. ”

1 Day 411/130; Day 412/38-39; Day 412/124-125; Day 412/133; Day 412/144

2 Day 412/69-70

111.216 Equally, however, Liam Wray was adamant that he had not made the remarks attributed to him by Paul Mahon.

111.217 In the end, having listened to both these witnesses, read what they put in their statements, and considered the submissions made on this matter,1we have concluded that it is more likely than not that Liam Wray did make some such remarks; and that he had been given the information by a member of the Official IRA.

1 FS7.2171; FR4.5

111.218 Considering the evidence we have discussed above, we have concluded that, despite their denials to us, members of the Official IRA did remove firearms from a car in Glenfada Park North. In our view it is likely that some at least of these were taken through the alleyway into Abbey Park, this being an obvious escape route, immediately before or as soldiers came into Glenfada Park North. In those circumstances a member of the Official IRA may have come to believe that this had caused the fleeing people to pause, with the result that some were fired upon before they were able to escape through the alleyway; and thus to have told this to Liam Wray.

111.219 We have found no other evidence to suggest that people paused, as they fled from soldiers who had come into Glenfada Park North, because of the presence of armed paramilitaries, though there is evidence that the passageway was congested, and that those carrying Michael Kelly may have caused or contributed to a temporary bottleneck. We cannot wholly exclude the possibility that some of those who were leaving Glenfada Park North after the arrival of the soldiers did pause because of armed paramilitaries, but this necessarily assumes that they chose not to provide this information to this Inquiry. On the whole we consider it unlikely that people paused for this reason.

Other evidence

Barry Liddy

111.220 Barry Liddy was, as we describe elsewhere in this report,1one of the people arrested at the southern end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North. He died without giving evidence to this Inquiry, but he was interviewed by Paul Mahon. In this interview Barry Liddy said that having been arrested, and as he was marched through a car park, an Army Sergeant opened the door of a red car and pulled back a blanket, revealing six to eight rifles of different types. According to Barry Liddy, the Sergeant said to him You were loaded for bear today ”, presumably meaning that they were heavily armed, before shutting the door. Barry Liddy thought that he was on his own when he was pulled over by the Sergeant, and that no other soldier or civilian was near the car at that time.2

1 Chapter 113 2AL13.86-91

111.221 We have no doubt that Barry Liddy was arrested at the gable end and escorted by soldiers through Glenfada Park North together with other arrestees. However, it is to our minds unbelievable that such an incident could have occurred, for had it done so there would have been military evidence of it. As it is there is no evidence from any other source, military or civilian, that such an incident did occur. We have commented elsewhere in this report that there are grave doubts about other aspects of the account that Barry Liddy gave to Paul Mahon. In our view there was no such incident.

Witness X

111.222 Witness X was someone who was interviewed in 1972 by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). To protect his human rights we can give no further details of this individual save that according to the notes of the interview he was a member of the Provisional IRA.1Witness X was recorded as having told the RUC the following about the events of Bloody Sunday:2

“I was also in action on Bloody Sunday at Rossville Street…

On ‘Bloody Sunday’ I was using a carbine. It was a joint operation. I was firing from Glenfada. I used two full magazines. I had four mags altogether. PIRA 8, PIRA 9, […] were the only Provos in Rossville Street along with the Stickies, Reg TESTER, OIRA 4, OIRA 6 were the only ‘Stickies ’ I knew. ”

1 AX1.1

2 AX1.2

111.223 PIRA 9 was the cipher for Martin Doherty, also known as “Ducksie Doherty ”, who chose not to claim anonymity.

111.224 A letter from Headquarters Northern Ireland shows that the Army provided the RUC with a list of further questions about Bloody Sunday to be put to Witness X.1According to internal RUC correspondence, Witness X was re-interviewed but refused to say any more about the day.2

1 G134B.906.9

2 G134B.906.8

111.225 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Witness X said that he was arrested in 1972, but he denied that he was a member of the Provisional or Official IRA on Bloody Sunday. In relation to the notes of the alleged interview he said that he had absolutely no knowledge of this interview nor the contents of the note .1He also told us that he did not take part in the march on Bloody Sunday and did not go to the Bogside that afternoon.2

1 AX1.3; Day 435/36-38

2 Day 435/3-4

111.226 Witness X accepted that the unredacted notes of the interview correctly stated his full name, the address at which he lived at the time of the interview, the day and month of his birth, and the date on which he was interviewed by the RUC.1However, he said that he was not in action on Bloody Sunday, that he was not armed at any stage that day, and that he did not tell the RUC that he was. He denied saying that there was a joint operation , something about which he told us he knew nothing at all.2Witness X also denied knowing of, or telling the RUC about, almost all of the remaining information contained in the note of the interview.3He said that he had absolutely no recollection of being re-interviewed by the RUC.4

1 Day 435/7-10

2 Day 435/14-15

3 Day 435/10-19

4 Day 435/20

111.227 The two RUC officers who interviewed Witness X were Detective Sergeant Samuel Davidson and Detective Constable William Edward Kilfedder. Neither man could recall the interview.1Detective Sergeant Davidson, in response to being told of Witness X’s denial of knowledge of the interview, told us that:2

“I can not comment on Witness X[’s] view other than to say I have no reason to believe that the part of the document shown to me is anything other than a genuine copy and that the record of what Witness X said at interview is an accurate account of the notes. As a matter of personal and professional pride I can confirm that I would not have used physical force, inducement or threat of either of the aforementioned upon Witness X or any other person being interviewed and I have no reason to believe Witness X would have been other than truthful at the time. ”

1 JD1.3; Day 423/37-38; JK6.4; Day 423/61

2 JD1.3

111.228 Detective Sergeant Davidson also told us that it appeared to him that notes of the interview were made for intelligence purposes only.1

1 JD1.3; Day 423/32

111.229 Detective Constable Kilfedder told us that he had no reason to disbelieve or to doubt that the typed record of Witness X’s 1972 interview is anything other than an accurate record of the interview itself and of the information he provided ”.1

1 JK6.5

111.230 We are sure that Witness X did give the information recorded in the notes of interview.

111.231 However, we have concluded that it would be unwise to place any reliance on the account given by Witness X to the RUC or to this Inquiry.

111.232 We accept the evidence of former Officials and Provisionals, including most of those named in the interview notes, that there were no such joint operations, on Bloody Sunday or otherwise.1As PIRA 17 put it:2

“I have been referred to a redacted statement by Witness X. In particular I have been referred to the second page where ‘Witness X ’ talks about a ‘joint operation ’ and firing from Glenfada Park. I have no knowledge of anyone firing from Glenfada Park on Bloody Sunday. I completely refute the suggestion that there was a ‘joint operation ’ between the Provisional and the Official IRA, if this is what was intended. It is inconceivable that a joint operation could be planned between us. At its best there was a strain in the relationship, and at worst, there were fundamental differences between the two groupings. Joint operations were not contemplated.

1 APIRA8.2; Day 400/72-73; AOIRA4.24; AOIRA6.4; Day 413/165; Day 391/270

2 APIRA17.13

111.233 It seems to us unlikely that there was on Bloody Sunday a joint operation between the Official and Provisional IRA, given the poor relationship between these two organisations.

111.234 We should note at this point that on 17th January 1972 the Director of Operations Intelligence Committee (Northern Ireland) considered an assessment for the period from 11th to 17th January 19721in which it was reported that both factions of the IRA … claimed to have acted jointly in an incident in which five gunmen armed with Thompson sub-machine guns were engaged by troops in Londonderry. A Special Branch assessment for the period ending 19th January 19722recorded that during the period terrorist elements, particularly gunmen, had been active in Londonderry, and that This activity is believed to have been sponsored jointly by both I.R.A. groups in the city.

1 G60B.367.6

2 G64.383

111.235 In our view, to the extent that these assessments suggest that the Official IRA and Provisional IRA had engaged in joint operations, they are likely to be inaccurate. There is no doubt that both the Officials and the Provisionals had, in the period before Bloody Sunday, engaged in paramilitary activities in Londonderry, but we have found nothing else (apart from what Witness X told the RUC) to suggest that the relationship between the two IRA groups was such that they might have planned or carried out any such activity in which both factions were acting jointly.

111.236 In any event we cannot see how on Bloody Sunday there could have been, after the soldiers had come into the Bogside, anything in the nature of an operation, joint or otherwise. The soldiers had come unexpectedly into the Bogside and those paramilitaries there had little or no chance of planning or doing anything that could be described as an operation against that incursion. We have found no evidence from any other source to suggest that there was the substantial amount of carbine firing from Glenfada Park described by Witness X. In the end we have concluded that the most likely explanation is that Witness X invented his account while being interrogated.

Conclusions on paramilitary activity in Glenfada Park North

111.237 Early in our discussion of paramilitary activity in Sector 4 we expressed the view that the central question in the context of Sector 4 is not simply whether paramilitaries or rioters might go into Glenfada Park North when surprised by soldiers coming into the Bogside, or had at some other time fired at soldiers from there; nor even whether paramilitaries or rioters were there or had taken refuge there when the soldiers did come in on Bloody Sunday. To our minds the central question is whether there is evidence that when the soldiers came into Glenfada Park North, there were paramilitaries there who behaved either in the manner described by the soldiers, or otherwise in such a way as to cause the soldiers to open fire.

111.238 So far as this question is concerned, we have found nothing in the material we have considered that to our minds supports the accounts of the soldiers of what they encountered when they entered Glenfada Park North or the reasons that they gave for opening fire.

111.239 We are satisfied that after soldiers had come into the Bogside and soon before they entered Glenfada Park North, there were people there with firearms and nail bombs, and that there was at least one car used to hold weapons, which members of the Official IRA removed. Thus the accounts of the soldiers cannot be challenged on the basis that there could be no question of the presence of armed paramilitaries in Glenfada Park North.

111.240 What to our mind is missing, however, is anything (apart from the evidence of the soldiers themselves) that suggests to us that when the soldiers did arrive in Glenfada Park North and opened fire, armed paramilitaries were still there. Our view of the evidence is that those with weapons had moved away. The closest the evidence gets to the presence of armed republican paramilitaries is the evidence that armed Officials left through the passageway into Abbey Park very shortly before the soldiers opened fire in Glenfada Park North. It is possible that one or more soldiers saw these paramilitaries as they left, which caused them to open fire at other targets, but this is difficult to reconcile with the evidence given by the soldiers, who said that the men they had seen with rifles had been in Glenfada Park North when they fired and that they had been shot. We have considered earlier in this report1 whether there were additional casualties in Glenfada Park North or Abbey Park, other than those we have described, and have concluded for the reasons that we give that there were no such casualties. Those who were killed and wounded in Sector 4 were not carrying firearms or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) bombs.

1 Chapter 110

111.241 As for those paramilitaries who were seen after the shootings in Glenfada Park North and Abbey Park, it is of course possible that they (or one or more of them) had previously been in that area (for example, OIRA 7) but again we have found nothing that suggests to us that any of them was present with weapons when the soldiers came in and opened fire.

111.242 In our view, it follows from the foregoing consideration of the evidence relating to paramilitary activity that former members of the Official IRA have made attempts to conceal from this Inquiry the whole truth about the presence of members of this organisation in the area of Glenfada Park North; about the presence of an IRA car containing weapons in Glenfada Park North; and about what happened to those weapons. However, in the light of the whole of the evidence relating to Sector 4, we have concluded that when the soldiers came into Glenfada Park North and opened fire, no paramilitary there held weapons or used or attempted to use either bombs or firearms against any of the soldiers. In our view paramilitaries who had been present had left the square or taken refuge in houses or flats.