Chapter 152: Other evidence said to show paramilitary firing within the five sectors
Contents
Paragraph
Gunner INQ 1997 152.2
Corporal 131 152.4
Rifleman 154 152.8
Lieutenant INQ 22 152.11
Lieutenant Colonel Wilford and Private INQ 1152 152.15
Major INQ 10 152.21
152.1 In the course of dealing with the events of Sectors 1 to 5 we have considered the question of paramilitary firing within those sectors. At this point we draw attention to other evidence that was said to indicate that such firing took place, but which we consider does not in fact do so.
Gunner INQ 1997
152.2 Gunner INQ 1997 of 22 Lt AD Regt told us in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that while he was positioned at a barricade on Sackville Street (Barrier 13), and while a crowd was at the barricade, a pistol shot from a low velocity weapon was fired from the back of the crowd followed by a high velocity shot. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 he admitted that it was difficult to assess the distance from which the latter shot had been fired, and he did not hold to the 800–1,000 yards that he had stated in his written evidence to this Inquiry.
1 C1997.2 2 Day 295/93-94; Day 295/100
152.3 Gunner INQ 1997 did not give any account of this incident in 1972 and we have found no other evidence to support it.
Corporal 131
152.4 Corporal 131 of A Company, 2 RGJ, was positioned at Barrier 15. He told us that he believed that he had heard between three and four gunshots from somewhere on the north side of William Street, and had thought that they were fired from pistols.1
1 B1814
152.5 Corporal 131 accepted in his oral evidence to this Inquiry that locating the source of this gunfire would have been difficult, although he was certain it was not self-loading rifle (SLR) fire:1
|
“Q. Is it possible that the fire that you heard was SLR fire? A. No. Q. Was it definitely low velocity fire? A. It was low velocity fire, three to four rounds in rapid succession. Q. What is it now that makes you so sure that it was low velocity fire you were hearing? A. Well, I worked with weapons the best part of me young life, and into – when I got a little bit older. I had been around weapons basically since I was 17-years old, and on the day in question, I mean, we were not expecting nothing and then, bup bup bup, they went off. I thought, ‘Oh, well ’, just to myself, ‘Here it goes’. Q. At about the time you heard those shots, do you remember hearing any high velocity shots as well? A. At that time, no. There was just the three or four that carried off, where I was standing, up towards that end. They definitely came from round about where the old Stevenson’s bakery used to be and up towards Eugene’s Cathedral. ” |
152.6 Corporal 131 did make a Royal Military Police (RMP) statement,1 although in it he made no mention of hearing paramilitary firing.
1 B1809
152.7 As we have observed on a number of occasions, we take the view that in a built-up area it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between different types of gunfire. Furthermore, had Corporal 131 heard what he could clearly tell was paramilitary gunfire, we are sure that he would have recorded it in his RMP statement. In our view, if Corporal 131 did hear gunfire, it was probably that of soldiers in the Abbey Taxis derelict building, which we have discussed in the context of Sector 1.
Rifleman 154
152.8 Rifleman 154 of A Company, 2 RGJ, was positioned at Barrier 14, and referred in his RMP statement to hearing a loud crack from a high velocity weapon prior to the barricade being opened to let the paratroopers through.1
1 B1930
152.9 His written statement to this Inquiry1 was consistent with his RMP statement. He told us that he heard the crack of a round (or possibly two, although the second crack may have been an echo) from a high velocity weapon. This occurred while people were still throwing stones at the barrier, and before the movement of paratroopers through the barricade. He confirmed this account in his oral evidence.2 While he thought that the shot might have originated from the Rossville Flats, he admitted that he did not know its origin.
152.10 In our view, what Rifleman 154 probably heard was the shot by OIRA 1 or one or possibly two from soldiers in the derelict building of Abbey Taxis, which we have described when considering the events of Sector 1.
Lieutenant INQ 22
152.11 Lieutenant INQ 22, the Platoon Commander of Mortar Platoon, Support Company, 1 CG, gave oral evidence to this Inquiry. It was clear that as a result of a serious accident in the intervening period his memories of the events of Bloody Sunday had been affected.
152.12 However, Lieutenant INQ 22 wrote a letter to his parents dated 31st January 1972 (before his accident) in which he stated that the first volley of shots that he heard was not from any Army weapon.1 His written statement to this Inquiry2 indicated that he heard one high velocity shot from a non-Army weapon, followed by shots from a Thompson sub-machine gun; that these shots came from the Rossville Flats area; and that it was then that he heard 7.62mm Army fire.
|
1 C22.10 |
2 C22.4 |
152.13 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Lieutenant INQ 22 provided a detailed explanation as to how he knew the difference between Army and non-Army fire:1
|
“A. … I was the officer in charge of the Bisley shooting team for the battalion, and was very used to hearing different weapons being fired on the Bisley ranges, and so I believe that that gave me some credibility when I make a statement like that. Q. Could you at the time identify the weapon that you thought had fired that shot? A. I cannot be specific about what weapon fired that shot. It was certainly not a British Army standard weapon 7.62. I know that for a certainty. ” |
152.14 It is not entirely clear where Lieutenant INQ 22 was stationed on Bloody Sunday. His 1972 letter indicates that he was guarding the Army post at Bligh’s Lane, some 760 yards from the junction of William Street and Rossville Street. We have referred earlier in this report to the difficulty, if not impossibility, of distinguishing between the sounds of different firearms, and identifying from where the weapon was fired.1 Though Lieutenant INQ 22 may well have heard gunfire, we are not persuaded that he was able to identify either the weapon being fired or the area from which it was fired.
Lieutenant Colonel Wilford and Private INQ 1152
152.15 In his 1972 written statement Colonel Derek Wilford gave this account of incoming fire:1
|
“I then moved round the corner hugging close to the wall and ran forward towards the end of Rossville Flats – the northern end. About half way across the ground two or three shots cracked uncomfortably close so I changed direction and ran to the right where I took cover behind a low wall and just to the rear of some of my paratroopers .” |
1 B950
152.16 He gave a similar account in his supplemental written statement for the Widgery Inquiry:1
|
“I saw some Support Company vehicles at the northern end of the Rossville Flats. I assumed that was where the Company Commander was and ran across to join him. However halfway across, when I was probably between Eden Place and Pilot Row I realised that shots were coming in my direction. I changed direction and went across to the edge of the long building on the other side of Rossville Street where there were some men of Support Company. ” |
1 B973
152.17 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Colonel Wilford said that the two or three shots he heard were fired from an M1 carbine.
1 WT11/43
152.18 On the question of timing, it would seem that Colonel Wilford witnessed what he said was incoming fire minutes after soldiers had gone into the Bogside, at a time after members of Composite Platoon (Guinness Force) had reached the low walls of the Kells Walk ramp.
152.19 Private INQ 1152 was a radio operator with Colonel Wilford. He told us that he had an impression of being shot at while running south, ie in the direction of the Rossville Flats, with Colonel Wilford:1
|
“Q. May we look at C1152.6, please, paragraph 26. You said: ‘As I have said, I could hear gunfire. I cannot differentiate between firing. The shots sounded to me like single high velocity shots. The shooting was close because it was echoing. I remember hearing shots as I was running. I am not sure of the direction. I do not remember seeing any incoming fire, by which I mean fire directed at the soldiers by civilians ... Nevertheless, I had the feeling we were being shot at. I cannot recall seeing any soldiers firing. I could have been in cover. I had the sensation that the shooting was fairly close. ’ What was it that gave you the feeling that you were being at shot [sic]? A. The feeling I was being shot at – I was being shot at, that is it, it is the feeling that something was very close and it was a gut, actual gut feeling, sir, that I was being shot at. ” |
152.20 Once again, we emphasise that in a built-up area it is difficult, if not impossible, to know the type of weapon being fired or the direction in which the fire is aimed. It may be that Colonel Wilford and his radio operator believed that they were under fire, but we are not persuaded from their evidence that this was in fact the case. At the time in question there was, as we have described when considering the events of the five sectors, a very substantial amount of firing by soldiers, only a matter of yards from Colonel Wilford and Private INQ 1152.
Major INQ 10
152.21 Major INQ 10 was the Company Commander of A Company, 1 PARA. He wrote up a diary of operations1 on 31st January 1972 in which he recorded the following, timed between 1612 and 1715 hours:
|
“Have gone firm in the posn William St/Creggan St junction and 100 m East I cleared my area to ensure that there were no enemy sniper posns. During this time I heard frequent individual shots and the occasional burst of fire which appeared to come from the area of Rossville Flats. This fire appeared to consist of both low and high velocity wpns, one of the latter definately being an M1 carbine. I was able to differentiate S Coys return of fire once [since] they used only 7.62mm SLR ammo. ” |
1 B1341
152.22 We are not persuaded that Major INQ 10 could distinguish between SLR and M1 carbine fire, for reasons we have discussed elsewhere in this report.1 As we have described when dealing with the events of Sectors 2 and 3, there was both high and low velocity fire in those sectors; but this account does not add materially to our information on that fire.
