Skip to Content | Accessibility Statement | Site Map

Report of the The Bloody Sunday Inquiry
- Volume V - Chapter 86



The casualties in Sector 3

Chapter 86: The casualties in Sector 3

Contents

Paragraph

Michael Kelly 86.3

Biographical details 86.3

Prior movements 86.4

Medical and scientific evidence 86.15

Michael Kelly’s clothing 86.42

Where Michael Kelly was when he was shot 86.43

When Michael Kelly was shot 86.45

What Michael Kelly was doing when he was shot 86.48

Where Michael Kelly was taken after he was shot 86.59

Hugh Gilmour 86.60

Biographical details 86.60

Prior movements 86.61

Medical and scientific evidence 86.67

Hugh Gilmour’s clothing 86.84

Where Hugh Gilmour was when he was shot 86.85

When Hugh Gilmour was shot 86.149

What Hugh Gilmour was doing when he was shot 86.152

Where Hugh Gilmour was taken after he was shot 86.156

Michael McDaid 86.157

Biographical details 86.157

Prior movements 86.158

Medical and scientific evidence 86.167

Michael McDaid’s clothing 86.187

Where Michael McDaid was when he was shot 86.188

When Michael McDaid was shot 86.191

What Michael McDaid was doing when he was shot 86.192

Whether Michael McDaid (and William Nash and John Young) were
shot from the City Walls 86.193

Whether Michael McDaid was arrested and put into an Army vehicle
from which he escaped 86.198

Where Michael McDaid was taken after he was shot 86.200

William Nash 86.201

Biographical details 86.201

Prior movements 86.202

Medical and scientific evidence 86.214

William Nash’s clothing 86.239

Where William Nash was when he was shot 86.240

When William Nash was shot 86.241

What William Nash was doing when he was shot 86.242

Where William Nash was taken after he was shot 86.243

John Young 86.244

Biographical details 86.244

Prior movements 86.245

Medical and scientific evidence 86.257

John Young’s clothing 86.283

Where John Young was when he was shot 86.284

When John Young was shot 86.285

Where John Young was taken after he was shot 86.286

What Michael McDaid, William Nash and John Young were doing when
they were shot 86.287

Kevin McElhinney 86.365

Biographical details 86.365

Prior movements 86.366

Medical and scientific evidence 86.375

Kevin McElhinney’s clothing 86.409

Where Kevin McElhinney was when he was shot 86.410

When Kevin McElhinney was shot 86.411

What Kevin McElhinney was doing when he was shot 86.414

Where Kevin McElhinney was taken after he was shot 86.469

Alexander Nash 86.470

Biographical details 86.470

Prior movements 86.471

Medical and scientific evidence 86.477

Alexander Nash’s clothing 86.481

Accounts given by Alexander Nash 86.482

Where Alexander Nash was when he was shot 86.499

When Alexander Nash was shot and what he was doing when he was shot 86.500

Consideration of the foregoing evidence 86.552

What happened to Alexander Nash after he was shot 86.559

Whether a soldier or a paramilitary gunman shot Alexander Nash 86.560

The removal of the bodies of Michael McDaid, John Young and William Nash 86.608

86.1 We now turn to consider the circumstances in which the known casualties in Sector 3 were shot. As we have previously stated,1 there is no doubt that Michael Kelly, Hugh Gilmour, John Young, Michael McDaid, William Nash and Kevin McElhinney were killed by Army gunfire in this sector. Alexander Nash, the father of William Nash, was wounded by gunfire, though whether this was Army or civilian gunfire was a matter of dispute. Alexander Nash was wounded after he had gone out to the rubble barricade to his son William Nash, who was lying there after being shot.

1 Paragraph 67.2

86.2 Later in this report1 we consider whether it is possible to determine who shot these casualties.

1 Chapter 89

Michael Kelly

Biographical details

86.3 Michael Kelly was 17 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He lived in Dunmore Gardens, Creggan, with his parents and some of his siblings. He was employed as an apprentice sewing machine mechanic in the factory of Deyong Golding Ltd, on the Maydown Industrial Estate. He kept racing pigeons as a hobby.1

1 AK14.1; ED45.5; ED65.1

Prior movements

86.4 In his written statement to this Inquiry1 and in his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Michael Kelly’s brother-in-law George Downey said that he went to Michael Kelly’s parents’ house on the morning of Bloody Sunday. George Downey arrived too late to accompany Michael Kelly’s parents to Mass at midday, but found Michael Kelly still in bed. Michael Kelly joined the rest of the family for lunch after his parents returned from Mass. At about 2.00pm, George Downey set off for the start of the march at Bishop’s Field in the company of Michael Kelly, his other brothers-in-law John Kelly and George Cooley, and Michael Kelly’s friends Zac Rooney, John Daly and Jim Brennan. George Downey said3 that he became separated from Michael Kelly at some point during the march.

1 AD134.17

2 Day 123/5

3 AD134.19

86.5 William Martin Hegarty was another brother-in-law of Michael Kelly. He said in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that he too left for the march from Michael Kelly’s parents’ house. William Martin Hegarty’s evidence was that he left the house at about 2.20pm with George Downey, George Cooley, another man named Eamonn Quigley, and (he thought) Michael Kelly’s brother John, but that Michael Kelly, Jim Brennan and Zac Rooney left for the march separately.

1 AH65.2

86.6 A photograph taken by the Derry Journal photographer Larry Doherty appears to show Michael Kelly on the march. We have no other photographs that show him before he arrived in the area of the rubble barricade.

86.7 In his written statement to this Inquiry1 and in his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 George Downey told us that after he had become separated from Michael Kelly, he did not see him again until they happened to meet (before the paratroopers entered the Bogside) at the point marked “B” on the plan attached to his statement3 (the north-eastern corner of Columbcille Court). While they were there, Michael Kelly’s mother shouted and beckoned to him from the first floor walkway on the western side of Kells Walk, but Michael Kelly was embarrassed and did not go to his mother. George Downey then heard that two people (evidently Damien Donaghey and John Johnston) had been shot. He went to find out which house they were in, thereby parting company once more with Michael Kelly.

1 AD134.18-AD134.19

2 Day 123/8-9

3 AD134.26

86.8 Michael Kelly’s mother, the late Kathleen Kelly, told us in her written statement to this Inquiry1 that she had seen him near the north-eastern corner of Columbcille Court. She was looking from the front door of her sister’s maisonette on the first floor of Kells Walk. It appears from her statement that Kathleen Kelly believed that she saw her son only after the paratroopers had entered the Bogside. She said that he did not hear her when she called to him and that he ran off towards Glenfada Park.

1 AK14.2-AK14.3

86.9 According to the note made by Philip Jacobson of the Sunday Times of his interview of her on 29th February 1972,1 Margaret Deery said that Michael Kelly had helped her into Chamberlain Street after she was wounded. The same claim appears in Margaret Deery’s written statement for the Widgery Inquiry2 and in the note of her recollections taken on 25th January 1983,3 to which we have referred in our discussion of the casualties in Sector 2.4 Margaret Deery’s daughter Helen Deery said in her written statement to this Inquiry5 and in her oral evidence to this Inquiry6 that her mother had told her that she had been assisted to Chamberlain Street by Michael Kelly. Helen Deery added that Michael Kelly was always at our house and all our family knew him .

1 AD33.1

2 AD33.5

3 AD33.6

4 Paragraphs 55.88 and 55.93

5 AD32.3-AD32.4

6 Day 77/85-86

86.10 John Kelly identified his brother Michael in one of the photographs taken by the Irish Times photographer Ciaran Donnelly of the scene at the rubble barricade when the Army vehicles came into the Bogside.1

1 AK13.9; AK13.11

86.11 We accept this identification. The same figure can be seen in the following photograph taken moments earlier by the same photographer.

86.12 These photographs, which we have also shown earlier in this report,1 show some of the Army vehicles on Rossville Street, and the Eden Place waste ground virtually deserted. We are doubtful whether there was time for Michael Kelly to have made his way to the car park of the Rossville Flats, to have helped Margaret Deery into Chamberlain Street after she was shot and then, by one route or another, to have reached the area south of the rubble barricade before he was photographed there.

1 Paragraph 70.3

86.13 In our view, therefore, Margaret Deery was probably mistaken in thinking that Michael Kelly had assisted her after she was shot. In our view he is unlikely to have had time to have assisted Margaret Deery (who was the second casualty in Sector 2) and then gone to the rubble barricade, where he became the first casualty in Sector 3.

86.14 In these circumstances it remains uncertain from where Michael Kelly had come to reach the rubble barricade. On the whole, however, we consider that he had probably entered from the western side of Rossville Street, perhaps through Glenfada Park North. If Kathleen Kelly was mistaken in her memory of seeing her son after (as opposed to before) the soldiers entered the Bogside, both her account and that of George Downey support this conclusion.

Medical and scientific evidence

Wound pathology and ballistics

86.15 Dr Thomas Marshall, then the State Pathologist for Northern Ireland, conducted an autopsy of the body of Michael Kelly on 31st January 1972 at Altnagelvin Hospital.1 Dr Raymond McClean (a local general practitioner who attended the autopsies of the bodies of many of the deceased as an observer at the request of the Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh)2 and an RUC photographer were also present.3 Dr Richard Shepherd and Mr Kevin O’Callaghan, who were engaged by this Inquiry as independent experts on pathology and ballistics respectively, considered the notes, report and photographs from this autopsy. Dr Marshall (now Professor Marshall), Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan all gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. Dr Marshall also appeared before the Widgery Inquiry.

1 WT9.3; D543

2 AM105.8

3 D60

86.16 In his autopsy report,1 Dr Marshall described a gunshot wound consisting of an approximately oval hole measuring 28mm x 16mm, in the left side of the abdomen, centred 6cm to the left of the umbilicus and 40.5in above the soles of the feet. The long axis of the wound was directed downwards and to the left at an angle of 20° to the vertical. The left margin was shelved, with the subcutaneous tissue facing outwards. The right margin was fairly steep. The margins were soiled in places by what appeared to be fibres of clothing. The hole was bordered by a variable zone of pale abrasion, up to 3mm wide. Between the 11 o’clock and 1 o’clock positions, the outer limit of this abrasion was a thin red line.

1 D60

86.17 The internal injuries found by Dr Marshall are described in his report.1

1 D62-D63

86.18 We have referred in an earlier chapter of this report1 to the examination conducted in 1972 of the bullets recovered from three of the casualties. For reasons we gave there,2 we have no doubt that Lance Corporal F fired the bullet recovered from Michael Kelly’s body. In his case, a copper-jacketed, lead-cored bullet bearing rifling marks was found embedded in the centre of the sacrum at about the level of the third segment. The bullet was removed and handed to Constable Hugh McCormac,3 who took it to the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science in Belfast on 2nd February 1972.4 Dr John Martin, then a Principal Scientific Officer in that department, there examined it microscopically in order to compare the rifling marks with those on bullets fired from the rifles known to have been used on Bloody Sunday. It was this exercise that enabled the bullet to be matched to Lance Corporal F’s rifle. In his report on the comparison of the bullets dated 29th February 1972,5 Dr Martin did not mention any damage to the bullet extracted from the body of Michael Kelly. After this Inquiry was established, a search for the bullet was made in the holdings of the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland, formerly the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science, but the bullet was not located.6

1 Paragraphs 81.21–31

2 Paragraph 81.32

3 D63

4 ED45.6

5 D47

6 D741.7

86.19 In the course of the autopsy, as he explained in his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Dr Marshall caused X-rays to be taken of Michael Kelly’s sacrum to show the location of the bullet.

1 Day 207/50-52; Day 207/60-61

86.20 In his autopsy report, Dr Marshall summarised his conclusions about the fatal injury as follows:1

Death was due to a bullet wound of the abdomen. A single bullet had entered the abdomen just over two inches to the left of the umbilicus. It had caused three perforations of the upper small intestine, complete transection of a segment of small intestine further down and it had lacerated the artery and vein serving the left leg before it embedded itself in the middle of the sacrum, the bone forming the back of the pelvis. It was the haemorrhage into the abdomen from the lacerated blood vessels which precipitated his death.

The bullet was recovered. It had a copper jacket and lead core and was seemingly of SLR type.

With the body erect, the track of the bullet through the body was backwards, with a declination of about 30° and a deviation to the right of about 20°. The bullet might have come from a point above him to his left front or, had he been bending forwards at the time he was shot, the bullet would have been travelling horizontally about 3 ft. 6 ins. above the ground.

The entrance wound was atypical and indicates that the bullet was not travelling nose-on when it struck. It had probably already passed through some object or been deflected by it.

1 D64

86.21 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Dr Marshall confirmed the conclusions set out in his autopsy report.

1 WT9.6-WT9.7

86.22 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Dr Marshall clarified his reference in those conclusions to a declination of about 30° and a deviation to the right of about 20°, explaining that the former was the declination from the horizontal plane and the latter the deviation from the sagittal plane. The sagittal plane is the vertical plane which divides an object (in this case, the human body) down the middle into left and right sides.

1 D546-D547

86.23 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Dr Marshall said that it was possible that the bullet had passed through something soft, such as the soft tissue or clothing of another person, before it hit Michael Kelly. He was asked whether the bullet could have been deflected by hitting something harder such as a brick or a piece of debris without showing any sign of damage. Although he thought that in such circumstances a bullet would show signs of damage, Dr Marshall said that this was a matter outside his expertise. Dr Marshall was asked2 whether, on the hypothesis that the bullet had passed merely through the jacket of a person standing ten yards or so in front of Michael Kelly, it was likely that the bullet would have been so destabilised in its flight as to have hit Michael Kelly side-on. He replied that he had no personal experience of this but that although he thought that passing through clothing, particularly firm clothing, would have helped to destabilise the bullet, he was not sure that it would have made it go side-on by the time it got to Michael Kelly .

1 Day 207/55-61; Day 207/99-102

2 Day 207/128-130

86.24 Professor Keith Simpson, then a Home Office pathologist, gave oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry after having studied the mortuary photographs and autopsy reports relating to those who were killed on Bloody Sunday, and photographs of rifling and score marks on the bullets recovered from the deceased.1 Professor Simpson said that he did not think that the bullet that killed Michael Kelly was a ricochet or that it had struck bone before it entered Michael Kelly’s body.2 His view appears to have been based on the degree of enlargement of the entrance wound rather than on the absence of damage to the bullet. He thought it possible that the bullet had been slightly deflected on passing through soft tissue or clothing before it hit Michael Kelly.

1 D629

2 WT9.39

86.25 In their report, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan reached conclusions which they summarised as follows:1

Michael KELLY was hit by only one bullet, which struck his abdomen approximately side on most probably with the nose of the bullet pointing upwards and to the right and the base downwards, indicating that the bullet was unstable.

Assuming the Normal Anatomical Position the direction of travel of the bullet is clearly downward and slightly from left to right.

1 E2.41

86.26 As Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan explained in their report:1When describing the human body it is standard practice in medicine to assume that the body is standing vertically with the arms by the sides and the palms facing forwards. This position is known as the standard or NORMAL ANATOMICAL POSITION.

1 E2.0020

86.27 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Dr Shepherd said that it was most likely that the bullet had struck an object or person before it struck Michael Kelly. It could have bounced off a hard object or passed through a soft object, such as part of a human body. The relatively pristine state of the bullet showed that it had not passed through a hard object and suggested that any contact with such an object had been very shallow.

1 Day 229/5-7; Day 229/77-80

86.28 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Mr O’Callaghan was shown one of the X-rays showing the bullet lodged in Michael Kelly’s sacrum and said that while no damage to the bullet was apparent from the X-ray it was not possible to draw the conclusion that the bullet was undamaged. If the bullet had struck a hard object, it is likely that some damage would have resulted, although it would not necessarily have been visible to the naked eye if the contact had been slight.

1 Day 230/18-22

86.29 The photographs of Michael Kelly’s body taken in the mortuary show the wound described by Dr Marshall. We have examined these photographs but do not reproduce them here. A diagram appended to the report of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan1 illustrates the position of the wound.

1 E2.76

86.30 Herbert Donnelly, then an Assistant Scientific Officer in the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science, examined the clothing of Michael Kelly under the direction of Dr Martin.1 In his report dated 21st February 1972,2 Dr Martin set out this finding:

A hole approx. 1 " long in the front left of the jacket had a trace of lead on the edge and is consistent with bullet damage. There is corresponding damage to the undergarments.

1 D50-D53; D741.60; Day 225/59-62

2 D45

86.31 Dr Martin commented that before it hit Michael Kelly the bullet had probably struck an intermediate object, which had upset its stability.

86.32 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan also examined the clothing of Michael Kelly, which had been retained by his family. Photographs were taken of the clothing.1 In their report,2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan stated:

As can be seen in our photographs of the clothing, the bullet struck the deceased’s jacket side-on. It passed through the left front of the jacket, pullover and vest, and nicked the top of the elasticated waistband of the deceased’s underpants.

The more extensive damage to the vest visible in the photographs is likely to have been due to the vest being crumpled in that area when the bullet passed through.

The two small holes adjacent to the bullet hole in the front of the pullover may well be due to deterioration of the garment with age. We found no associated damage to the other items of clothing.

We found no further bullet damage.

1 F5.1-8; F5.11-12

2 E2.40-E2.41

86.33 On the basis of this evidence, we consider that the bullet was very likely to have contacted some object before it hit Michael Kelly. Later in this report1 we conclude, for the reasons that we give there, that Michael Kelly was not the victim of a bullet that had first struck someone else. In front of Michael Kelly was the rubble barricade, constructed out of a variety of materials. In our view the bullet probably struck some part of this barricade at a shallow angle before it struck Michael Kelly. We have found no evidence that suggests that the bullet first passed through the clothing of anyone standing in front of Michael Kelly.

1 Paragraphs 87.228–236

Tests for firearm discharge and explosives residue

86.34 Dr Martin tested the jacket that Michael Kelly was wearing when he was shot, and swabs taken from his hands, for the presence of lead particles. Apart from the trace of lead on the edge of the bullet entry hole in the jacket, Dr Martin detected what he considered to be above normal densities of lead particles on the right cuff and back of the jacket. He also detected a large lead particle on the swab from the back of the left hand, but no lead particles on the other hand swabs. He stated in his report the conclusion that the nature and distribution of lead particles on the swabs and jacket was similar to those produced by exposure to discharge gases from firearms, but that the absence of lead on the right hand was not consistent with the high levels detected on the right cuff of the jacket.1Dr Martin also detected lead particles on Michael Kelly’s trousers,2but did not comment on these in his report.

1 D45-D46

2 D49; D605-D606

86.35 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1Dr Martin said that the contamination of the right cuff but not of the right hand was consistent with firing while wearing a glove. He could think of no explanation for the particles found on the cuff other than exposure to discharge gases either from handling or standing beside someone using a firearm. Dr Martin said2that it was possible that the particle on the left hand had come from a fragmenting bullet.

1 WT9.14

2 WT9.19-WT9.20

86.36 The clothing removed from the body of Michael Kelly at the autopsy did not include a glove.1There is no evidence that he was wearing a glove on his right hand when he was shot.

1 D61

86.37 Dr John Lloyd, the independent scientific expert engaged by this Inquiry, summarised in his report1his overall conclusions about the tests for lead particles conducted by Dr Martin. He considered that, in view of the lack of control testing and the likelihood of spurious contamination, Dr Martin’s results were of no evidential value.

1 E1.51-E1.52

86.38 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Martin accepted that unless there was evidence from other sources to indicate an association between any of the deceased and a weapon, it would be unwise to interpret his findings as other than contamination .

1 Day 226/2

86.39 In relation to Michael Kelly, Dr Lloyd stated in his report1and in his oral evidence to this Inquiry2that although the use of a firearm while wearing a glove was a possible explanation for the particles found on the right cuff, it was of doubtful credibility in view of the flawed and unspecific nature of Dr Martin’s tests, and that it was improbable that proximity to a person who was discharging a gun could have produced the distribution of particles found in this case.

1 E1.44

2 Day 227/43-44

86.40 Dr Martin said in his oral evidence to this Inquiry1that he would now agree with those views of Dr Lloyd. We also accept the views of Dr Lloyd. It follows that we consider there to be no valid scientific evidence that Michael Kelly had been handling firearms or had been close to someone who was handling a firearm.

1 Day 226/94

86.41 Alan Hall, then a Senior Scientific Officer in the same department as Dr Martin, examined the outer clothing of Michael Kelly for explosives residue. None was detected.1There is, therefore, no scientific evidence that Michael Kelly had been in contact with explosives.

1 D41

Michael Kelly’s clothing

86.42 Michael Kelly was wearing a light blue jacket, a mustard-coloured pullover, a brown tie and blue trousers.1

1 D0040

Where Michael Kelly was when he was shot

86.43 We have shown earlier in this report1the two photographs taken by Robert White of Michael Kelly lying on the ground after being shot. It is convenient to show those photographs again here.

1 Paragraph 81.33

86.44 There is no doubt that Michael Kelly fell at, or very close to, the position in which he can be seen in these photographs. We have already referred1to the evidence on which we rely for this conclusion. By way of example, Fr Terence O’Keeffe, who was watching from the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North,2gave the following evidence to the Widgery Inquiry:3

Q. What was the first casualty you observed?

A. One young man who dropped holding his stomach, and four young people detached themselves from this crowd which was still on that gable end corner and ran over very fast indeed. They crouched and grabbed him by the arms and legs and ran back behind the gable end of the wall. At that stage the crowd more or less got in behind the wall to see what was wrong with the young man.

Q. I would like greater detail about that if you are capable of giving it, but if not, say so if you will. Can you say where about on that barricade that first casualty was – the Rossville Flats side of the barrier or your side, or where?

A. More towards my side of the barrier on the gable end.

LORD WIDGERY: That is nearer to Rossville Street th[a]n to the flats. You were on that side?

A. Nearer to the gable end of the maisonettes.

LORD WIDGERY: Glenfada Park, yes.

Mr. STOCKER: When he was hit, can you tell m[y] Lord whether he was crouched or standing or lying down?

A. Standing facing Rossville Street, down Rossville Street towards the Saracens. I saw him hold his stomach and double up and begin to fall, at which these four young people took him and carried him very swiftly. It was very swiftly done.

1 Paragraph 81.33

2 This south end is often referred to as the “gable end” of this block.

3 WT5.6

When Michael Kelly was shot

86.45 As we have noted earlier in this report,1Michael Kelly was the first casualty of Army gunfire at the rubble barricade.

1 Paragraph 81.1

86.46 Before taking the two photographs shown above1 of Michael Kelly lying shot on the ground, Robert White had taken photographs of Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) coming into the Bogside, and of the crowd moving away on the Eden Place waste ground. Robert White told us that these photographs were taken in fairly quick succession. He believed that they would have been taken within a few seconds of each other.2 He said that he then ran into Glenfada Park North and halfway up the pram-ramp at the north-eastern corner of Glenfada Park South and took three photographs from there, of which the first two are those of Michael Kelly. The third photograph, to which we return below,3was of Hugh Gilmour. Robert White recalled that it did not take him very long to get to the pram ramp, because he was afraid of missing something. He said that he did not think that the distance that he had to run was as far as 60 yards.4 He also said that he thought that he was standing at the pram ramp for a matter of seconds, but less than a minute, before he took the first photograph showing Michael Kelly lying on the ground.5

1 Paragraph 86.43

2 Day 137/86-87

3 Paragraph 86.88

4 The distance is, in fact, somewhat more than 100 yards.

5 AW11.4; Day 137/87-90

86.47 It is difficult to estimate what time passed between the entry of the Army vehicles and the shooting of Michael Kelly, but in our view at most it can only have been a matter of a very few minutes.

What Michael Kelly was doing when he was shot

86.48 As we have discussed earlier in this report,1there was rioting at the rubble barricade when the Army vehicles came into the Bogside. The photographs that we have displayed above2show that Michael Kelly moved forward slightly from the position, just south of a missing piece of pavement, in which Ciaran Donnelly photographed him standing, so that when he was shot he was closer to the rubble barricade, on the tarmac verge of the pavement close to the kerb.

1 Chapter 70 2Paragraph 86.43

86.49 Differing accounts of Michael Kelly’s actions emerge from the civilian evidence, ranging from him being a passive bystander to him being an active rioter. Ronald Wood, who saw Michael Kelly fall, told the Widgery Inquiry that he was not throwing stones when he was shot1 and told us that it did not appear that Michael Kelly had been throwing anything when he was hit.2 The photographer Ciaran Donnelly told the Widgery Inquiry that Immediately prior to falling he [Michael Kelly] had not been doing anything at all, he was merely standing, but people on both sides of him were throwing stones .3 Hugh O’Boyle, who was standing to the right of Michael Kelly, told us that he did not remember people around him throwing stones.4

1 WT4.57

2 Day 127/15

3 WT2.81

4 Day 132/6

86.50 On the other hand, Paul McGeady suggested that Michael Kelly was shot while scaling the barricade and was thrown backwards by the shot,1 although he placed him more towards Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. Danny Craig said that Michael Kelly had been throwing stones and had picked up another that he was about to throw when he was struck.2 Patrick Joseph Norris said that Michael Kelly had picked up a stone after stepping out from the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North when the Army came in and was about to throw it when he was shot.3 Neither Danny Craig nor Patrick Joseph Norris could identify himself in the two photographs that Ciaran Donnelly took of the people behind the rubble barricade, which we have shown above4 and which we show again below.5 These witnesses placed Michael Kelly in different positions when he was shot. Danny Craig said that Michael Kelly was at the rubble barricade when he fell, while Patrick Joseph Norris said that Michael Kelly had just stepped out from the wall at the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North when he was shot.

1 Day 137/128-131

2 AC111.11-12; AC111.2; Day 135/94

3 AN24.3; Day 167/98-103

4 Paragraphs 86.10–11

5 Paragraph 86.52

86.51 John J McLaughlin told the Sunday Times Insight Team reporter Philip Jacobson that Michael Kelly was struck while dragging fencing to close the gap in the rubble barricade.1 William Vincent Hegarty made a NICRA statement2 and a written statement for the Widgery Inquiry,3 and gave oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry4 and a deposition for the purposes of the inquest into Michael Kelly’s death,5 in all of which he said that Michael Kelly was shot while attempting to cross the rubble barricade, after having been entangled in barbed wire there. He described the young man he saw shot as wearing a light blue suit, and said that he was told by Michael Kelly’s parents that Michael Kelly was so dressed that day.6 William Griffin7 told the Widgery Inquiry and the Sunday Times that he and Michael Kelly were crossing the barricade from the north when Michael Kelly was shot, and that he had not been entangled in wire.

1 AM334.4

2 AH66.3

3 AH66.1

4 WT7.22

5 AH66.9

6 WT7.23

7 AG58.1; AG58.2; AG58.3-4

86.52 The accounts of Paul McGeady, Danny Craig, Patrick Joseph Norris, John J McLaughlin, William Vincent Hegarty and William Griffin differ, but all describe an active Michael Kelly. Ciaran Donnelly’s first photograph appears to show Michael Kelly standing, though the second may show him stepping forward.

86.53 As we have observed elsewhere in this report,1 it is important to bear in mind that still photographs such as these record only an instant of time. Thus in our view it would not be legitimate to infer from these photographs that Michael Kelly was simply standing when he was shot. Our assessment of the evidence discussed above2 has led us to conclude that it is likely that Michael Kelly had thrown or was throwing or was about to throw a stone when he was shot.

1 Paragraph 70.6 2Paragraphs 86.49–52

86.54 However, we have no doubt about four matters.

86.55 Firstly, we are sure that Michael Kelly was neither a gunman, nor a nail or petrol bomber. There is no evidence to suggest, nor did anyone suggest, that he was armed with any form of lethal weapon.

86.56 Secondly, we are sure that Michael Kelly (even if, contrary to our view, he was not himself throwing anything) was among or near the people at the rubble barricade who were throwing stones, bricks, rubble and perhaps bottles, as we have described earlier in this report.1

1 Chapter 70

86.57 Thirdly, we are sure, having considered both the military and civilian evidence, that when Michael Kelly was shot, there was no-one at the rubble barricade who had deployed or who was about to deploy a firearm or bomb of any kind. We have considered whether the actions of those at the rubble barricade when Michael Kelly was shot could have led a soldier mistakenly to believe that anyone there was presenting a lethal threat sufficient to justify opening fire, but for reasons we give later in this report,1we have concluded that Lance Corporal F neither had, nor believed that he had, any justification for firing the round that killed Michael Kelly.

1 Paragraphs 89.15–17

86.58 Finally, in view of Robert White’s photographs and the medical evidence, we have no doubt that Michael Kelly was shot when he was behind the rubble barricade and facing north.

Where Michael Kelly was taken after he was shot

86.59 Soon after he was shot, Michael Kelly was carried behind the south wall of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, where Fr Denis Bradley and others tended him. He was then carried across Glenfada Park North, through the south-western alleyway and into the Carrs’ house at 8 Abbey Park. From that house he was taken to Altnagelvin Hospital in an ambulance that also carried two of the Sector 4 casualties. We deal in more detail with what happened to Michael Kelly after he had been taken to the gable end, in our consideration of the events of Sector 4.1

1 Chapter 92

Hugh Gilmour

Biographical details

86.60 Hugh Gilmour was 17 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He was the youngest member of his family and lived with his parents at 23 Garvan Place in Block 2 of the Rossville Flats. He was employed by Northern Ireland Tyre Services as a tyre fitter.1

1 AB38.5; AB38.47; AG39.1; ED37.11

Prior movements

86.61 In her written statement to this Inquiry,1 Hugh Gilmour’s sister Mary Bonner told us that her brother had lunch at their parents’ flat. At about 2.30pm or 2.45pm, he left the flat to meet some friends by the shops on the south side of Block 2 of the Rossville Flats. This group of seven or eight friends walked through the Bogside to join the march.

1 AB38.1

86.62 Michael Bridge (the cousin of the man of that name wounded in Sector 2) told us in his written statement to this Inquiry,1 that he joined the march with Hugh Gilmour, and left him at the junction of William Street and Rossville Street.

1 AB83.1

86.63 In their closing submissions,1 the representatives of the family of Hugh Gilmour refer to a photograph that they submit shows him on the march.

1 FS1.1468

86.64 It appears from a photograph of Hugh Gilmour being carried to an ambulance, that he was wearing a Fair Isle or similar sweater.

86.65 A man wearing such a sweater can be seen towards the foreground of the photograph of the marchers shown above,1 but we are not wholly persuaded that this is Hugh Gilmour, because the pattern of the sweater appears different. There are two photographs, taken by Frederick Hoare of the Belfast Telegraph, which show a man in a patterned sweater facing Barrier 14, apparently holding a stone or other projectile in his hand, but this man’s hairstyle bears little resemblance to that of Hugh Gilmour, and he appears to have been wearing a longer coat than is shown in Robert White’s photograph of Hugh Gilmour running south past Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, which we consider below.2

1 Paragraph 86.63

2 Paragraph 86.88

86.66 We accept that Hugh Gilmour was on the march, but have found no evidence to indicate how he arrived at the vicinity of the rubble barricade after he left Michael Bridge at the junction of William Street and Rossville Street.

Medical and scientific evidence

Wound pathology and ballistics

86.67 Dr Derek Carson, then the Deputy State Pathologist for Northern Ireland, conducted an autopsy of the body of Hugh Gilmour on 31st January 1972 at Altnagelvin Hospital.1 Three other doctors and two RUC photographers were also present.2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan, the experts on pathology and ballistics engaged by this Inquiry, considered the notes, report and photographs from this autopsy. Dr Carson, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan all gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. Dr Carson also appeared before the Widgery Inquiry.

1 WT8.64; D532

2 D179

86.68 In his autopsy report,1 Dr Carson described the following four gunshot wounds:

(i) A circular entrance wound, 6mm in diameter, on the ulnar border of the left forearm, centred 12cm above the ulnar styloid. This wound was surrounded by a rim of dark red abrasion, 2mm wide. There was no blackening of the surrounding skin.

(ii) A ragged exit wound, measuring 20mm x 11mm, on the flexor surface of the left forearm, at a slightly lower level than wound (i). This wound was surrounded by an irregular rim of abrasion, 2–3mm wide. It lay within a vague zone of bruising, measuring 5cm x 2.5cm. There was a fracture of the underlying ulna.

(iii) A gaping wound, measuring 6cm x 5cm, on the left side of the trunk, with the centre of its anterior border situated 13cm directly below the nipple. There was no significant abrasion of its margins.

(iv) An elliptical wound, measuring 20mm x 12mm, on the right side of the trunk, centred 14cm below and 7cm behind the right nipple and 16cm above the right anterior superior iliac spine. The long axis of this wound was directed downwards and forwards at an angle of 20° to the vertical. There was no significant abrasion of the wound margins nor was there any bruising or blackening around it. The wound had a split appearance, with pointed extremities, and did not have the typical appearance of an entrance wound.

1 D179

86.69 The internal injuries found by Dr Carson are described in his report.1

1 D181-D182

86.70 Dr Carson summarised his conclusions about the gunshot injuries as follows:1

There were two gunshot wounds on the left forearm and two more on the trunk. Only one of the four had the typical appearances of an entrance wound. This was located on the ulnar border of the back of the mid-forearm. From here the bullet had passed through the forearm, causing a fracture of the ulna, before leaving the front surface of the forearm at a slightly lower level than the entrance wound.

Of the wounds on the trunk the larger was located on the left side of the front of the lower chest and the other on the right side at about the same level but slightly further back. The bullet causing these wounds had fractured the 8th rib on each side, lacerated the diaphragm, the left lung, the liver, spleen and stomach. The liver injury was particularly extensive. Massive bleeding into the chest and abdominal cavities from these injuries would have caused rapid death.

It might be argued that because the wound on the left chest was larger than that on the right chest, the wound on the right side was an entrance wound and that the man must therefore have been struck by two bullets. If this were so then the bullets would have come from opposite directions, one from his left and the other from his right. However the wound on the right chest, although smaller, did not have the typical appearance of an entrance wound, being pointed at each of its extremities as though the tissues were split open from within. It would be more logical to conclude that all

four wounds were caused by the passage of a single bullet and that the large size of the wound on the left chest was accounted for by distortion or yawing of the bullet which had already passed through the left forearm and fractured the ulna. All four wounds were brought into line when the left forearm was semi-flexed at the elbow with the upper arm almost touching the body and the flexor surface of the wrist facing the abdomen. On this interpretation the bullet had passed horizontally from left to right through the body with a slight inclination backwards. Assuming the deceased was erect at the time the bullet must have come from his left and slightly in front of him.

The extent of the injuries indicated that the bullet had come from a weapon of medium or high velocity, but since the missile had passed completely through the body and was not recovered it was not possible to determine the calibre. There was nothing to suggest that the weapon had been discharged at close range.

1 D184-D185

86.71 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Dr Carson confirmed the conclusions set out in his autopsy report.

1 WT8.67-WT8.69

86.72 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Dr Carson told us that although he could not entirely rule out the possibility that the wound in the right chest was an entrance wound, he still stood by his original conclusions and believed that the most likely explanation of Hugh Gilmour’s wounds was that they were all caused by a single bullet.

1 D535

86.73 In a further written statement,1 Dr Carson made the following comments in support of his interpretation of Hugh Gilmour’s injuries:

There is an adage in medicine that common things occur most commonly. This is true of wounds of arm and trunk. Experience over the years has shown many cases in which a single bullet passes through both.

The arm is usually in a position by the side, whether standing, walking or running. Therefore there is a great possibility that a bullet passing through the trunk from side to side will also damage an arm, and vice versa.

Since the probability is that both wounds were caused when the deceased was upright, then it is asking a lot of coincidence to suggest that two bullets struck the body at the same level and at the same time, and further that they came from diametrically opposite directions.

The wound on the right side of the trunk does not have the appearance of an entrance wound. (Note the appearance of all the other entrance wounds in the six cases). It is not a small neat circular hole with an abrasion collar – rather it is large and pointed above and below with a split appearance, typical of an exit wound.

A bullet which has been deformed, especially by impact with bone, and which has lost its stability of flight may well cause a re-entry wound larger than the ultimate exit wound. It is losing more energy on re-entry, and temporary cavitation must also be considered as a factor, in high velocity wounds in particular.

1 D537.1

86.74 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Dr Carson maintained the same views, although he accepted that if Hugh Gilmour had been hit by two bullets, they need not necessarily have struck him simultaneously. He explained the phenomenon of temporary cavitation, whereby the passage of a bullet through the body can cause an expansion of the surrounding tissue and hence an enlargement of the wound. Dr Carson added that it would have been possible for Hugh Gilmour to run a distance of 20 to 30 yards even after he had sustained the injury to his trunk. Dr Carson observed that unless the brain or spinal cord is grossly damaged it is amazing what can be done after a gunshot wound . On the other hand, he later said2 that he would not have expected Hugh Gilmour to have stayed on his feet for long after receiving the injury to the trunk. Dr Carson was inclined to agree with a suggestion put to him that once Hugh Gilmour had been injured in the arm, it would have been natural for him to clutch his arm to his abdomen, in which case a second bullet passing through the trunk would have been likely to cause a further injury to the arm. Dr Carson agreed3 that there did appear to be a small area of abrasion on part of the margin of the wound on the right side of the chest, but he did not consider that any significance should be attached to this.

1 Day 206/11-34; Day 206/48-74

2 Day 207/21-27

3 Day 207/35-39

86.75 In their report, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan reached conclusions which they summarised as follows:1

The possible causes of the injuries to the chest and arm are:

a) ONE SHOT: passing through the left arm then re-entering the left chest and exiting the right chest.

b) ONE SHOT: entering the right chest, exiting the left chest, re-entering the left arm.

c) TWO SHOTS: one passing through the left arm and one passing through the chest left to right.

d) TWO SHOTS: one passing through the left arm and one passing through the chest right to left.

The injury to the ulnar aspect of the left arm is such a classic entry wound that we have no doubt that it indicates that the bullet must have passed through the left arm from the ulnar to the flexor surface.

It is extremely difficult to orientate the arm so that the ulnar wound is against the site of the wound on left chest wall. The entry wound on the ulnar surface of the arm is so unlikely to be a re-entry wound that we consider that this possibility can be excluded. These factors exclude option (b).

It is our opinion that the injury to the right side of the chest is, more likely than not, an entry wound and that the injury to the left side represents an exit wound. This would exclude options (a and c). However the injury to the left side of the chest is not photographed clearly and in the absence of X rays that might have given information about the direction of fragmentation of the ribs this cannot be stated with certainty.

Based on the original 4 hypotheses it is therefore much more likely than not that Hugh Gilmore was struck by two bullets; one striking the right side of the chest and the other the left forearm. (d)

The forearm is an extremely mobile part of the body and it is not possible to give any indication of its position when struck. The mobility is so great that the shot that struck the forearm could have come from almost any position around the body. Clearly the shot to the chest, if we are correct in the orientation of this shot, has come from a point to the right of the chest at the moment of discharge.

1 E2.60-E2.61

86.76 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Shepherd adhered to these conclusions. With regard to Dr Carson’s views, Dr Shepherd commented that a moving person is less likely to have his arm at his side than one who is stationary, and that if two bullets had hit Hugh Gilmour when he was moving they need not necessarily have come from opposite directions. There was also no reason why the two bullets must have struck Hugh Gilmour at the same time. Dr Shepherd said that although the wound on the right side of the trunk had some features of an exit wound, it looked less like an exit wound than the wound on the left side. Although atypical, it was possible for an entrance wound to show the split appearance described by Dr Carson and to lack a rim of abrasion. Dr Shepherd considered that temporary cavitation was more likely to affect the size of an exit wound than of an entrance wound.

1 Day 229/12-20; Day 229/89-90; Day 229/93-99

86.77 It will be seen from the foregoing summaries of their evidence that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between Dr Carson and the Inquiry’s experts as to whether Hugh Gilmour was struck by one or two bullets. We return to this difference of opinion later in this report.1

1 Paragraph 86.148

86.78 The photographs of Hugh Gilmour’s body taken in the mortuary show the wounds described by Dr Carson. We have examined these photographs but do not reproduce them here. A diagram appended to the report of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan1 illustrates the position of the wounds.

1 E2.82

86.79 This diagram also shows the position of what Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan described as a small puncture wound 1 adjacent to the upper margin of the wound to the right side of the trunk, visible in the mortuary photographs but not mentioned in Dr Carson’s autopsy report or notes. However, in his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Dr Carson said that he was not sure that there had been a puncture wound and thought that this was just a blemish on the skin.

1 E2.58 2Day 207/38

86.80 Herbert Donnelly, then an Assistant Scientific Officer in the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science in Belfast, examined the clothing of Hugh Gilmour under the direction of Dr John Martin, then a Principal Scientific Officer in the same department.1 In his report dated 21st February 1972,2 Dr Martin set out these findings:

There is a small hole in the left arm of the anorak (item 2) which had traces of lead on the perimeter and is consistent with a bullet entry. A second larger hole in the arm is consistent with bullet exit and two more larger holes in the left and right of the anorak body are consistent with the path of the same bullet. There is corresponding damage to the pullover, shirt and vest (items 3, 4 and 5).

1 D171-D174; D741.60; Day 225/64-66

2 D169

Tests for firearm discharge and explosives residue

86.81 Dr Martin tested the anorak that Hugh Gilmour was wearing when he was shot, and swabs taken from his hands, for the presence of lead particles. Apart from the traces of lead consistent with bullet entry around one of the holes in the left arm of the anorak, Dr Martin detected no significant number of lead particles on the anorak and none on the hand swabs. He concluded that Hugh Gilmour had not been using a firearm.1

1 D169

86.82 Alan Hall, then a Senior Scientific Officer in the same department as Dr Martin, examined the outer clothing of Hugh Gilmour for explosives residue. None was detected.1

1 D165

86.83 It follows that there is no scientific evidence that Hugh Gilmour had been handling firearms or had been close to someone who was handling a firearm, or that he had been in contact with explosives.

Hugh Gilmour’s clothing

86.84 We have referred above1to Hugh Gilmour’s multi-coloured sweater. Over this he was wearing a brown anorak and under it a yellow shirt. He was also wearing blue denim jeans.2

1 Paragraph 86.64 2D164

Where Hugh Gilmour was when he was shot

86.85 Two difficulties arise when considering the question of where Hugh Gilmour was when he was shot.

86.86 Much of the evidence is confused and irreconcilable. We do not find this surprising, in view of the fact that they were witnessing horrific and fast-moving events, and, as we have pointed out elsewhere in this report,1 people who have witnessed the same event very often give sharply differing accounts of it.

1 Paragraph 63.2

86.87 In the second place, if the Inquiry’s experts are correct in their view that it is most likely that two bullets hit Hugh Gilmour, then the possibility arises that he was first hit when in one place and hit again after he had moved to another place.

86.88 Hugh Gilmour can be seen in the following photograph, which Robert White took from the pram ramp on the north-eastern corner of Glenfada Park North after he had taken the photographs of Michael Kelly lying on the ground behind the rubble barricade, which we have considered earlier in this report.1Hugh Gilmour was identified in this photograph by, among other witnesses, Frankie Mellon.2

1 Paragraphs 81.33 and 86.43–44

2 AM399.4

86.89 Robert White (who did not make a statement in 1972) gave the following account in his written statement to this Inquiry of what happened after he had taken the two photographs of Michael Kelly:1

Just at that moment I became aware that a young man was running south on the pavement to the west of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. He was running along and holding his side with his right hand and I instinctively took a photograph of him. There would only have been a second or two between me seeing this young man and me taking the photograph. I would have had my camera ready and my elbows were probably resting on the wall of the pram ramp with my camera held up ready to shoot. I would say that the young man could only have run 5 or 6 yards between me seeing him and me taking the photograph that is attached and numbered 32. I subsequently learned that this young man’s name was Hugh Gilmore and that he was shot and killed that day. When I saw him I did not realise he had been shot, and again I thought that he had perhaps been hit by a rubber bullet.

1 AW11.4

86.90 Robert White told us that he did not know what had happened to the man he had photographed running.1 He stated that he later came down from the pram ramp and took a photograph of a group of people at the southern end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. It looked as if there were seven or eight people standing around a body on the ground, but I could not see that body and I did not know who it was. 2

1 AW11.4

2 AW11.5

86.91 There is no doubt that the people on the left of this photograph were standing over the body of Hugh Gilmour. There is abundant and convincing evidence that he had continued to run until he reached or came very close to the south end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, where he collapsed; and that he was then taken round the corner to a position beneath the end wall of the block. He died there; and from there he was taken by ambulance to Altnagelvin Hospital, as we describe later in this report.1

1 Paragraphs 124.5–6

86.92 In our view Hugh Gilmour had been hit by at least one bullet before he reached the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. We set out below a still from the helicopter footage on which we have marked the position of Hugh Gilmour as shown in Robert White’s photograph, from which it can be seen that he was some distance from the rubble barricade when that photograph was taken.1

1 E27.14

86.93 We now turn to consider the evidence of other civilians relating to where Hugh Gilmour was when he was shot. As will be seen, some of the witnesses put him in front of, some at, and some behind the rubble barricade when this happened.

Eamon Melaugh

86.94 Eamon Melaugh gave a Keville interview which included the following account:1

At approximately four o’clock or some time shortly after that I found myself standing at the barricade outside the Rossville Street Flats. The barricade was situated about twenty five to thirty yards from the Free Derry end of the flats. I was er – facing the Army and watching the members of the Security Forces fire their self-loading rifles. Most of the shots that I seen fired were being fired from waist level and that they weren’t deliberately aimed. Two shots rang out, the lad standing beside me who had – who I now know to be Hugh Gilmore lurched forward from the waist. He said I’ve been hit Eamon, I’m hit ; meaning that he was shot. I looked at him, there was an expression of amazement, total amazement on his face. He turned round and ran up

the street away from the barricade and from the soldiers. I ran after him. I wasn’t able to catch up with him because I was lumbered down with two cameras and long lenses. He ran, after having been shot, to the gable end nearest to Free Derry Corner. He then slumped to the ground out of the line of fire and some time later he died.

1 AM397.70

86.95 According to the statement taken by Peter Pringle of the Sunday Times Insight Team,1 Eamon Melaugh was one of the crowd that surged forward from around the area of the rubble barricade in response to seeing a youth being arrested. He was among the last civilians to move back towards the barricade as he had paused to pick up a lens hood that he had dropped. As he did so he saw a soldier with a baton gun firing from the western side of Rossville Street, and another soldier behind him who fired two live rounds. For reasons given earlier in this report,2we are of the view that these two soldiers were respectively Private 017 and Corporal P. According to the same statement, Eamon Melaugh attempted to take a photograph of at least one of these soldiers. He saw two youths lying on the ground near the rubble barricade, and believed that they were taking cover or feigning injury. There was a lull of 10 to 15 seconds and then two further shots rang out. Eamon Melaugh was standing next to Hugh Gilmour who lurched forward from the waist and called out I’m hit Eamon, I’ve been hit . As he said this he turned round and he bolted back towards Free Derry Corner and when he came to the door of the flats he started to stagger somewhat .

1 AM397.23-25 2Paragraphs 69.20–58 and Chapter 73

86.96 This statement also recorded that after trying to photograph the soldier who had fired first, Eamon Melaugh got down off the top of the barricade into the Free Derry side . Hugh Gilmour was shot no more than two feet from where Eamon Melaugh was standing. Eamon Melaugh took a moment to register what was happening, and then set off after Hugh Gilmour. He thought that Hugh Gilmour wanted to get into the doorway of the Rossville Flats, but could not do so as there were too many people present. He instead ran to the corner and fell out of the line of fire . Eamon Melaugh reached Hugh Gilmour and saw a wound below his chest that was emitting no blood. Someone was holding some material to Hugh Gilmour’s side. Eamon Melaugh said with ut[t]er and complete conviction that Hugh Gilmour was not even throwing stones when he was shot. He had nothing in his hands, and was not armed.

86.97 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry1 Eamon Melaugh accepted that he had been interviewed by, or had given a statement to, Peter Pringle but said: Obviously there are elements in the statement that I conveyed, but I can tell you that 85 per cent of that statement is sheer fiction, fiction. He also told us that the account that he had given to Kathleen Keville might have been more accurate than his current recollection.2

1 Day 143/23-25

2 Day 143/37-39

86.98 Despite what Eamon Melaugh said to us, we consider that the statement probably did accurately record an account that Eamon Melaugh gave in 1972. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Peter Pringle said that in most cases we would not have said statement unless there had been some special reason for that , and suggested that it might be a transcript of a tape recording or perhaps a copy of a statement made previously by the witness. The statement was generally consistent with what Eamon Melaugh had told Kathleen Keville. Thus the accounts that Eamon Melaugh gave in 1972 were to the effect that Hugh Gilmour was standing at or behind the rubble barricade, and only ran south after he was shot; whereas his recollection when he gave evidence to this Inquiry is that both he and Hugh Gilmour were both north of the rubble barricade, and that Hugh Gilmour was already moving in a southerly direction when he was shot.2

1 Day 190/47-50

2 AM397.4

86.99 We should note that it was Liam Mailey’s evidence to this Inquiry that Eamon Melaugh was behind the rubble barricade as the soldiers began to fire.1

1 M50.3

Geraldine Richmond

86.100 In her NICRA statement, Geraldine Richmond (who became Geraldine McBride) gave the following account:1

I was in the march on Sunday 30th January. I was at the corner of Rossville Street. I turned back towards Free Derry Corner. The boy Gilman [sic], was walking along the side of the flats at Rossville Street beside me. All of a sudden there was a lot of shooting. There had been no shooting before this. This shooting came from the army because when I turned round there was a soldier on one knee. The boy Gilman stumbled. I went over to him. Some men were already by his side. I prayed into his ear. I helped to carry him to where the telephone box was.

1 AM45.26

86.101 In an undated statement taken in 1972 (probably by solicitors acting for the wounded)1 Geraldine Richmond recorded that she ran south when she saw soldiers on the waste ground. She heard gunfire and saw smoke from some of their guns. Hugh Gilmour was on her left. He shouted that he was hit, and ran on holding onto his stomach. Geraldine Richmond grabbed his right arm and told him to keep running. She assisted him around the south-western corner of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, where he collapsed and died.

1 AM45.30-31

86.102 In her written statement for the Widgery Inquiry1 and in her oral evidence to that Inquiry,2 Geraldine Richmond said that she had been near Hugh Gilmour between Pilot Row and Eden Place. The two of them were present there when they became aware of the soldiers entering the Bogside, and they ran south towards Free Derry Corner. Just as they reached the main section of Rossville Flats Hugh Gilmour said I’m hit, I’m hit . Geraldine Richmond encouraged him to keep running. Hugh Gilmour began to stumble, but Geraldine Richmond was able, with the help of an unnamed man, to hold him up and help him round the corner of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. Geraldine Richmond said that Hugh Gilmour was shot just before we came to the barricade (and therefore presumably to the north of the barricade).3

1 AM45.24

2 WT6.48-51

3 WT6.49

86.103 In the course of her oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, Geraldine Richmond was shown a photograph of a man running doubled up. We have no doubt from the context that this was a copy of the photograph taken by Robert White of Hugh Gilmour running which we have reproduced above.1 Geraldine Richmond accepted that she was not shown in this photograph and that she did not begin to assist Hugh Gilmour around the corner until after this point.2

Q. You are not in that photograph?

A. No, I am not.

Q. So at this stage, at any rate, you were not still helping him to run?

A. No, but when we got beside those people there we grabbed him again and got him round the corner to help him.

1 Paragraph 86.88

2 WT6.50

86.104 In her deposition taken for the purposes of the inquest into Hugh Gilmour’s death,1 Geraldine Richmond again indicated that Hugh Gilmour was shot north of the rubble barricade as he ran south down Rossville Street.

1 AM45.27

86.105 In her evidence to this Inquiry, Geraldine Richmond told us that she and Hugh Gilmour ran from the incoming soldiers, but stopped at a point level with Pilot Row on Rossville Street. From there, Hugh Gilmour and another youth threw one stone each in the direction of the Army vehicles.1 She then saw soldiers disembark from vehicles on Rossville Street. She saw one soldier in particular firing from beside one of the vehicles.2 Geraldine Richmond and others ran south. Hugh Gilmour was slightly in front of her and to her left. Geraldine Richmond recalled scrambling over the barricade, with no indication as yet that Hugh Gilmour had been shot. There were youths at the barricade throwing stones, but Geraldine Richmond could not recall seeing any casualties there. There were more than ten people present at the barricade, some throwing stones, some standing around, and some running away.3 Hugh Gilmour continued to run in front of her and to her left on the pavement of Rossville Street, about six feet from the wall of the Rossville Flats.4 A little further south than halfway between the barricade and the south end of Block 1, Geraldine Richmond heard two shots that came from her right, and felt the bullets pass her. She heard Hugh Gilmour gasp and say that he had been hit. She believed that Hugh Gilmour was shot when just out of frame on Robert White’s photograph of him running. She marked her likely position in red at the time that the photograph was taken.5

1 AM45.15; Day 145/147-149

2 AM45.15-16

3 AM45.16; Day 145/154-155

4 AM45.16

5 AM45.17; Day 145/157-158; AM45.36

86.106 Geraldine Richmond told us that at the time when he was shot, Hugh Gilmour was running south and was not turning, and that she believed that the bullets came from the western side of Rossville Street from the Glenfada Park area.1 She and another man assisted Hugh Gilmour around the corner of Block 1, where he died.2 Geraldine Richmond said that when she recorded in her written statement for the Widgery Inquiry that she saw Hugh Gilmour shot before he reached the main section of the Rossville Flats she was referring to the main door of Block 1 (ie the entrance near the south-western corner of the block). However, this does not explain other indications in her earlier evidence that he was shot further to the north. Geraldine Richmond accepted that it was possible that Hugh Gilmour was hit twice, but remained confident that she became aware of Hugh Gilmour’s injury only after he had crossed the rubble barricade.3

1 AM45.17

2 AM45.17-18

3 Day 146/1-22

86.107 Geraldine Richmond’s oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry and her deposition for the coroner indicate that Hugh Gilmour was shot to the north of the rubble barricade, while her evidence to this Inquiry is that he was shot to the south of it. She also indicated for the first time, in her written statement to this Inquiry, that she believed that the bullets came from the western side of Rossville Street and flew past her. She recorded in that statement that Hugh Gilmour had thrown a stone at an earlier point, but at the moment of his shooting was running south and not turning.

Frankie Mellon

86.108 In his Keville interview,1 Frankie Mellon, then a student nurse, said that he was standing just outside … the flats opposite Glenfada Park when Hugh Gilmour come crawling round shouting he had been shot in the stomach . In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Frankie Mellon said that this account was not correct at all .

1 AM399.19

2 Day 151/178-179

86.109 Frankie Mellon gave a NICRA statement1 in which he recorded that Me and my mate were standing at the corner of flats opposite Glenfada Park. John [sic] Gilmore jumped into the air shouting I’ve been hit and he started running towards the corner2of the flats where we were standing. My friend and I grabbed Gilmore by each arm and dragged him around the corner. Just beside the telephone box Gilmore collapsed to the ground. Frankie Mellon stated that he then tried to tend to Hugh Gilmour’s wounds.

1 AM399.16

2 In the typed version of this statement the word “cover ” appears but we are satisfied that this was a typographical error for “corner ”.

86.110 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Frankie Mellon told us that he was walking south down Rossville Street when he saw a number of people running to the north of the rubble barricade and throwing stones in a northerly direction. Frankie Mellon stated that he walked south past them and that he noticed that Hugh Gilmour was one of these people. Hugh Gilmour was about six to eight feet from the wall of Block 1, and ran from the south of the barricade to 40 to 50 yards north, then threw one stone and turned to run back.1 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Frankie Mellon said that Hugh Gilmour might not have run so far to the north.

1 AM399.3

2 Day 151/142-143

86.111 Frankie Mellon told us that at this point he became aware of Army vehicles driving down Rossville Street.1 However, he stated that he had earlier seen an Army vehicle on the waste ground.2 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,3 Frankie Mellon accepted that he could have been wrong about the timing of the arrival of the vehicles. In his written statement to this Inquiry he recorded that he saw a number of soldiers disembark and commence firing immediately. Some of the soldiers moved towards the northern end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats and some to a low wall on the western side of Rossville Street. Frankie Mellon stated that he ran south, and reached the rubble barricade. As he did so he heard two single SLR shots fired in rapid succession. He believed that the shots came from somewhere to his right (thus the west). He told us that he was one of the last civilians to cross the rubble barricade, and that he continued running south. He recalled Hugh Gilmour running in front of him as he heard the shots. Hugh Gilmour had previously looked over his shoulder and seen the vehicles on Rossville Street, and was running in a southerly direction, two or three feet ahead of Frankie Mellon. The second shot appeared to hit him, and Hugh Gilmour jumped up, grasped his right side and shouted I’ve been hit .4 Frankie Mellon told us in his oral evidence that he thought that both men were south of the rubble barricade by this point.5 In his written evidence to this Inquiry he stated that Hugh Gilmour continued to run, but after a few steps began to stumble. Frankie Mellon ran after him and caught up with him at the entrance to Block 1. He was on Hugh Gilmour’s right-hand side. As the doors to Block 1 were closed, he pulled him around the gable and Hugh Gilmour collapsed. Frankie Mellon said that he believed that he was the only man who helped Hugh Gilmour at this point, although he did recall that he was with John Anthony (Sean) McDermott, to whose evidence we refer below,6 on the day.7 Frankie Mellon identified himself in Robert White’s photograph as the first man to the left of Hugh Gilmour, in a light-coloured jacket.8

1 AM399.3

2 AM399.2

3 Day 151/148-151

4 AM399.3-4

5 Day 151/145-146

6 Paragraphs 86.113–118

7 AM399.4-5; Day 151/159

8 AM399.4

86.112 Frankie Mellon’s NICRA statement was to the effect that he was standing at the southern corner of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats when he heard Hugh Gilmour shout that he had been hit and saw him start to run towards where he was standing. His Keville interview appears to be to much the same effect. In contrast, his evidence to us was that Hugh Gilmour was already running in a southerly direction when he was shot and that he, Frankie Mellon, was running behind him.

Sean McDermott

86.113 John Anthony McDermott, known as Sean McDermott, gave the following account in his NICRA statement:1

I was standing on the pavement outside the High Flats in Rossville St. I saw a boy walking alone across waste ground on the William St. side of the Flats. A soldier appeared on the corner of the Flats on the side nearest William St. The soldier caught hold of the youth and beat him mercilessly with a riot stick or baton. At this moment Hugh Gilmore emerged from the main door of the High Flats on Rossville St. He moved past towards the mound of rubble which formed a barricade across Rossville St. He got on top of the barricade and someone shouted They are shooting live ammunition. When I heard this I crouched and looked around and Hugh Gilmore jumped up clutching the bottom of his stomach shouting I’m hit, I’m hit. I thought he had been hit by a rubber bullet so a friend of mine Francis Mellon and myself got hold of him and assisted him around the corner of the Flats on the side nearest Free Derry Corner. As we got round the corner he collapsed. A few people gathered round to assist us.

1 AM4.11

86.114 In our view, Sean McDermott’s description of a youth being caught by a soldier relates, like the accounts of certain other witnesses to which we have referred earlier,1 to the arrests of William John Dillon.

1 Paragraphs 70.12–14

86.115 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Sean McDermott said that he no longer recalled seeing the arrest of a youth on the waste ground and that he was not aware of the presence of soldiers when he saw Hugh Gilmour for the first time.1 He told us that he did recall seeing Hugh Gilmour emerge from Block 1 of the Rossville Flats as he (Sean McDermott) stood with Frankie Mellon to the south of the rubble barricade. He saw Hugh Gilmour move off towards William Street.2

1 Day 144/56; Day 144/74-75

2 AM4.3

86.116 A few minutes after seeing Hugh Gilmour, Sean McDermott heard someone shout that live rounds were being fired. He crouched down, and heard bangs that he thought came from the general direction of William Street.1 Sean McDermott said that within 30 seconds he saw Hugh Gilmour running unaided in a semi-crouched position, along the eastern side of Rossville Street. He shouted I’m hit, I’m hit . Hugh Gilmour was approximately on the rubble barricade, or perhaps just to the south of it. He was running in a southerly direction. On hearing this, those at the barricade turned and ran.2 Sean McDermott and Frankie Mellon chased after Hugh Gilmour, who ran past the door of the flats. They assisted him around the corner of the gable, as his knees seemed to buckle when he reached the corner.3

1 AM4.3; Day 144/56-57

2 AM4.3; Day 144/60

3 AM4.3-4

86.117 Neither in his NICRA statement nor in his evidence to us did Sean McDermott suggest that he had actually seen Hugh Gilmour shot, but his NICRA statement implies that he saw him on the top of the rubble barricade very soon afterwards. He said that he was not shown in Robert White’s photograph of the running Hugh Gilmour, as he was just out of frame to the left, running behind Frankie Mellon.1

1 AM4.4

86.118 In his NICRA statement, Sean McDermott referred to helping Hugh Gilmour around the corner of the Rossville Flats with his friend Frankie Mellon. The latter referred in his NICRA statement to My friend and I grabbing Hugh Gilmour by each arm and dragging him round the corner.

James Green

86.119 James Green gave the following account in his NICRA statement:1

I was standin[g] at the barricade at Rossville flats with a young lad who turned out to be Hugh Gilmour. We saw the soldiers comin[g] in from William St. and this lad said to me, They are firing live ammunition . I said, They are firing over our heads and we are O.K. as long as we don’t get hit.

A minute later I heard one shot then another shot and then the boy said, Christ I’ve been hit.’ He half ran back to the corner of Rossville St flats for cover. With some help we put him on his back. The blood was pouring out of his side.

1 AG54.6

86.120 In his evidence to this Inquiry, James Green said that he was behind the rubble barricade when the soldiers arrived in the Bogside. After a few minutes he and others threw stones at the soldiers. There were about 20 to 30 people at the barricade at this point, but not all of them were throwing stones.1 James Green said that he heard gunfire and thought that the soldiers were firing over their heads. Although he could not be precise, he thought that there was probably a single shot, then a few, and then a volley.2 The crowd at the barricade did not seem too concerned about the shooting, possibly because they thought that baton rounds were being fired. James Green said that he knew that live rounds were being fired, and recalled a remark that he had made to a freelance photographer standing nearby who had said that he thought that live ammunition was being fired; but he said that did not seek cover because he was confident that the shots were being fired into the air.3 He acknowledged that his NICRA statement indicated that he had had the conversation about live rounds with Hugh Gilmour. He did not appear to be sure which was the more accurate recollection.4

1 AG54.2; Day 149/5; Day 149/7

2 AG54.2

3 AG54.2-3; Day 149/8-11

4 Day 149/13-14

86.121 James Green told us that he became aware of Hugh Gilmour beside him. James Green bent to pick up a stone and, as he stood up, he heard Hugh Gilmour exclaim that he had been hit.1 James Green did not see any visible signs of a wound at this time, and did not think that Hugh Gilmour had been hit with a live round. However, he recalled that Hugh Gilmour was crouched over and holding his stomach.2

1 AG54.3

2 Day 149/17-18

86.122 He told us that he and Hugh Gilmour turned and ran south, and that he noticed Hugh Gilmour falling behind and turned to look at him. He stated that he was doing so at the time that Robert White’s photograph of the running Hugh Gilmour was taken and identified himself as the man with glasses and a beard looking at Hugh Gilmour from under the canopy of the entrance to Block 1.1

1 AG54.3

86.123 James Green said that he saw no evidence of Hugh Gilmour having been hit by a second bullet, although he accepted that this could have happened after he had run past him.1 As Hugh Gilmour reached the corner of Block 1, James Green and three or four others lifted him and carried him round to the south end of the block where they laid him down.2

1 Day 148/21

2 AG54.3

86.124 In his written statement to this Inquiry, James Green told us that Hugh Gilmour had been throwing stones from behind the barricade, but that he did not have anything in his hands at the time he was shot. James Green stated that he thought that Hugh Gilmour’s hands had been in front of him, down by his sides .1 However, in his oral evidence James Green said that while he had not seen Hugh Gilmour at the moment when he was shot (as he himself was bending down), and while there was no stone in Hugh Gilmour’s hand when he looked at him after the shooting, he thought that Hugh Gilmour had probably had a stone in his hand, which he had possibly dropped at the moment when he was shot.2

1 AG54.3

2 Day 149/15-16

86.125 James Green’s evidence, therefore, is to the effect that Hugh Gilmour was shot while at the rubble barricade. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that Hugh Gilmour was on, as opposed to just behind, the rubble barricade.

Michael McCusker

86.126 Michael McCusker did not refer in his Keville interview to witnessing the shooting of Hugh Gilmour. He gave an account of leaving the car park of the Rossville Flats after soldiers had started firing there and then talking to John Young at the rubble barricade, who told him that two boys had been shot at the back of the flats. The account that he gave in this interview continued as follows:1

Then the shooting started again and somebody says that er – it’s the army shooting so I run and I got around the corner with the telephone box, round at the side of the flats there’s a telephone box. So I threw myself there and about – there must have been about a dozen all lying there and there was a young fella, he was just lying at the corner of the flats and the first aid couldn’t get to him.

1 AM160.13-15

86.127 This account appears to indicate that after seeing John Young (which would have been very shortly before the latter was killed at the rubble barricade) Michael McCusker ran to the southern corner of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats and saw Hugh Gilmour lying there.

86.128 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Michael McCusker told us that as the soldiers entered the Bogside he ran through the Rossville Flats car park and then through the passage between Block 1 and Block 2. When he reached the south end of Block 1 there was a lull in the gunfire that he had previously heard. He moved to the rubble barricade. He stayed there for about five minutes. There were about 12 to 20 people standing around. One of them was John Young, who told him that two people had been shot in the car park, and that one of these was Michael Bradley, who had been taken to a house in Joseph Place.1Michael McCusker told Praxis Films Ltd in about 19912that John Young had told him that Michael Bradley had been hitso I went around the back of the flats towards the courtyard to see if I could help him ”. Michael McCusker said that he turned to go, but heard firing break out before he moved. He ran south along with several other men. One of these men, who was running ahead of him, was dressed in a black bomber jacket and jeans. As he reached a point towards the southern end of Block 1, this man put his right hand to his back and staggered, falling forwards. Michael McCusker thought that the man had been shot, and although he did not see the source of fire he assumed that it came from the north. There was considerable firing at this time. Four or five people assisted the man around the corner.3

1 AM160.1-2

2 AM160.9

3 AM160.2; Day 148/57-59

86.129 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Michael McCusker was unable to explain why he had not referred in his Keville interview to seeing a man clutching his back and falling forwards.1

1 Day 148/63-64

Hugh Patrick O’Donnell

86.130 In his Keville interview Hugh Patrick O’Donnell gave an account of running from the junction of Rossville Street and William Street towards the Eden Place waste ground and of armoured cars passing him. He continued:1

There was four or five of them and then the Ferret2 car behind that. Well I looked back and I saw my mate and he seemed to be c – he seemed to be caught though I wasn’t sure. And I ran on and I ran into the waste ground and the army they were – and Saracens they were ploughing into the crowd. They were trying to ram the people … everything started to get confused then and we were surrounded by hundreds of soldiers, they were batoning people all round me and I was looking for a way out. There was a young – young bloke in front of me and the soldiers just at arms reach away; don’t know how he missed me but he did. And he hit me … head … his rifle butt and I got past him and as I passed the soldier I heard the rifle shots and I wasn’t sure where they came from or anything else but then I saw a soldier outside a Saracen and I saw him shooting his rifle. So I ran up to the end of the Rossville Street flats and I met another mate of mine and he told [me] that there was two young fellas lying dead around the back of the flats and nobody could get at them and he then started to cry and panicked and he led a few of us over a barricade at Rossville Street and we run down … the army and as we were running a black soldier stepped out of a saracen and he started firing his rifle at us and the bullets were hitting the barricade behind us and hitting the wall beside us and I could feel the wind passing me. And I

ran back to the corner of the flats and I looked back and saw that my mate was all right and as I turned the fella just at the corner of the flats fell beside me he was shot, he was right beside me and I got over to look, someone pulled up his jumper and opened his shirt to see how he was. There was a hole in him and the blood was running out of his nose and mouth and a man says he’s dead.

1 AO32.20-21

2 Having listened to the Keville tape, we consider that the word “other ” in the typed version is a transcription error for “Ferret ”.

86.131 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Hugh Patrick O’Donnell said that he was part of a crowd of about 30 to 50 people (some of whom were throwing stones) who surged over the rubble barricade towards the soldiers in Rossville Street. He believed that they did this in response to reports of youths being shot in the Rossville Flats car park. He heard live rounds being fired immediately after this and dropped to the ground at the rubble barricade.1 Hugh Patrick O’Donnell rose to his feet and as he did so he saw a black soldier at the north-western corner of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats firing his rifle repeatedly from the hip.2

1 AO32.4; Day 405/13-17

2 AO32.4; Day 405/17-19

86.132 Hugh Patrick O’Donnell said that he ran south, aware of further firing and bullets striking the rubble barricade. As he approached the corner of Block 1, he became conscious of a man on his left who was the only person who could keep up with him. This man suddenly seemed to be knocked forward in an unnatural movement and dropped to the ground somewhere close to the corner of Block 1. Hugh Patrick O’Donnell said that he jumped over the man to get to cover and then (with another man) pulled the injured youth to cover. He immediately realised that this man had been shot in the torso. He later learned that this was Hugh Gilmour. Hugh Patrick O’Donnell said that he believed that he was shown covering Hugh Gilmour with his jacket in the photograph that Robert White took of the group at the south end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.1

1 AO32.4-5; AO32.15; Day 405/20-23

86.133 Hugh Patrick O’Donnell said that he did not believe that Hugh Gilmour turned his body while he ran, and that he did not have anything in his hands. Hugh Patrick O’Donnell could not comment on the possibility that Hugh Gilmour had been shot twice, but he did not believe him to have been in pain or discomfort before he lurched forward and fell. He could not identify himself in Robert White’s photograph of the running Hugh Gilmour.1 Hugh Patrick O’Donnell told us he did not hear Hugh Gilmour shout anything as he ran.2 He said that he subsequently looked back at the rubble barricade and recalled that he could see about ten people lying behind it. He believed that at least one of these people (and in his opinion probably more) had been shot.3

1 Paragraph 86.88

2 Day 405/21-23

3 AO32.5; Day 405/24-25

86.134 It will have been noted that in his Keville interview Hugh Patrick O’Donnell described seeing a man fall, but did not record that he had actually seen him shot. In our view the account that he gave to Kathleen Keville is to be preferred to his recollection long afterwards; so that, although in our view he probably did see Hugh Gilmour collapse, we place no reliance on his evidence to the extent that it might suggest that Hugh Gilmour was shot close to the end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

PIRA 14 and PIRA 26

86.135 PIRA 14 and PIRA 26, who are brothers, and who at the time of Bloody Sunday were members of the Provisional IRA, told us that they were at the rubble barricade when Hugh Gilmour was shot. PIRA 26 said that he saw him run past them and throw a stone at soldiers at the north end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats1 after which he was shot by a soldier standing in front of the low ramp at the south end of Kells Walk, the same soldier having previously fired what PIRA 26 thought at the time were blanks down Rossville Street but more towards the Glenfada Park side .2

1 APIRA26.4; Day 425/65

2 APIRA26.4; Day 425/63-69

86.136 PIRA 14 gave evidence to this Inquiry that Hugh Gilmour may have been throwing a stone at the soldiers, and placed him either on or just north of the barricade when he was shot by a tall soldier near the low ramp at the south end of Kells Walk, who had previously been firing in the direction of Free Derry Corner . PIRA 14 said that his recollection was that Hugh Gilmour was facing towards the soldiers at the north end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats when he was shot.1 He told us that after being hit, Hugh Gilmour turned and ran alongside the Flats in the direction of Free Derry Corner .2

1 APIRA14.3-4; Day 421/48-49

2 APIRA14.4

86.137 We have no 1972 accounts from PIRA 14 or PIRA 26.

Alex Morrison

86.138 In his NICRA statement this witness described seeing, from the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, one of a group of boys standing on the Free Derry Corner side of the rubble barricade being shot. He stated that This was the first boy shot. He continued:1

Immediately I heard further shots which came from the soldiers and were directed at the other boys at the barricade of rubble. We retreated immediately to the doors of the flats. Kevin McElhinney was running alongside me. We were crouched and running at the same time – making for the main door of the flats. As I entered I heard Kevin – who was now2 just behind me shout I’m hit ... I’m hit … I dived on in the door and went up the stairs thinking that Kevin was behind me. I realised that no one was behind me so I ran back down and saw Kevin lying dead just inside the door. Others lifted him and took him upstairs. Kevin was beside me for the few moments before he was shot. At no time had a nail bomb, petrol bomb, gun or any other lethal weapon.

1 AM429.1

2 It is clear from the manuscript that not in the typed version was a transcription error for now ”.

86.139 This account referred to Kevin McElhinney, who was also shot in Sector 3. However, in his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Alex Morrison said that he now believed that it might have been Hugh Gilmour who was running behind him and shouted that he had been hit. He identified himself in Robert White’s photograph of the running Hugh Gilmour as standing under the canopy over the doorway to Block 1.1

1 AM429.1; AM429.8-9; AM429.11; Day 143/140-148

86.140 In view of Alex Morrison’s 1972 identification of the person who called out as Kevin McElhinney, and the fact that his NICRA statement recorded him diving “in the door” and not standing under the canopy as shown in the photograph above, it is difficult to place reliance on his current belief that it might have been Hugh Gilmour. Kevin McElhinney was shot after this photograph was taken. The evidence of this witness does not provide us with any assistance as to where Hugh Gilmour was shot.

Brendan Gallagher

86.141 This witness told us that he believed that he had seen Hugh Gilmour fall while level with the doorway of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.1 However, there is nothing in his NICRA statement2 to support this recollection and in our view it would be unwise to place any reliance on it.

1 AG4.3

2 AG4.1

Brian McLaughlin

86.142 We have considered the accounts given by Brian McLaughlin to this Inquiry, but have concluded that these are too vague and confused to allow us to place any reliance on them.1

1 AM320.3-4; Day 145/86-103; Day 145/124-125

Kathleen Brown, Margaret Patterson and Donal Deeney

86.143 These witnesses gave evidence to this Inquiry relating to the question of where Hugh Gilmour was when he was shot. There is a NICRA statement that appears to have been made by Kathleen Brown,1 but which she told us that she did not think that she had made.2 According to this NICRA statement, the witness saw a man coming out from the alley between the flats, towards the market who staggered and fell, and was finished … off by a soldier firing from Glenfada Park. Kathleen Brown told us, in her evidence to this Inquiry,3 that Hugh Gilmour came past the doorway of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats and appeared to try to run for cover through the passage between Blocks 1 and 2, but then to change his mind and turn back to face the direction from which he had come, whereupon he was shot by a soldier at the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North. We have found no other evidence that provides any support for this account. The other two witnesses gave no statements in 1972, and, having considered the evidence they gave to us, we concluded that it did not provide us with any reliable assistance on this topic.4

1 AB94.10

2 AB94.4; Day 144/111-115; Day 114/134-135

3 AB94.2

4 AP2.1; Day 185/68-99; AD26.1; AD26.10; AD26.16;
Day 86/1-171

Consideration of the evidence relating to where Hugh Gilmour was shot

86.144 As we noted above, much of the evidence on the question of where Hugh Gilmour was when he was shot is confused and irreconcilable. Nevertheless, in our view an analysis of the evidence does enable us to reach some conclusions on this matter.

86.145 Robert White’s photograph of Hugh Gilmour running1shows him with his right arm extended towards the side of his chest or abdomen. As we have noted above,2Robert White himself said that he took the photograph because the man was running and holding his side. He also said that the man could only have run five or six yards from when he first saw him to when he took the photograph. Geraldine Richmond, Frankie Mellon, Sean McDermott and James Green also described seeing Hugh Gilmour clutching this part of his body after he had called out that he had been shot. We are therefore of the view that Hugh Gilmour had been hit by the bullet that had passed through his chest before this photograph was taken. It follows that we consider that Hugh Gilmour was shot in the chest at least a few yards north of the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

1 Paragraph 86.88 2Paragraph 86.89

86.146 The evidence of Eamon Melaugh, James Green, PIRA 14 and PIRA 26 is to the effect that Hugh Gilmour was behind or just to the north of the rubble barricade when he was shot. Geraldine Richmond’s oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry and her deposition for the coroner indicate that she recalled him being to the north of the rubble barricade.

86.147 We have concluded that Hugh Gilmour received his chest wound when he was in the area of the rubble barricade; though we do not find it possible to say from the evidence considered above whether he was behind or in front of it.

86.148 None of the eyewitness evidence suggests that Hugh Gilmour was hit in the left arm by another bullet either before or after the time when he sustained the chest wound. The possibility exists that he was shot twice more or less simultaneously, but this would involve him either being shot from two quite different directions, or very rapidly turning his arm or body or both between the shots. In our view it is much more likely that Hugh Gilmour was only shot once, the bullet passing through his left arm and into and through his chest. Accordingly we take the view that on this matter Dr Carson’s opinion is to be preferred to that of the Inquiry experts.

When Hugh Gilmour was shot

86.149 In view of Robert White’s sequence of photographs we have concluded that Hugh Gilmour was shot after Michael Kelly. As discussed above,1Robert White took two photographs of Michael Kelly lying on the ground after he had been shot. We do not know how long Michael Kelly had been lying there when these photographs were taken, though it appears (for example, from Fr O’Keeffe’s account quoted above2) that soon after he was shot he was carried to the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, and so it could not have been very long. Robert White’s next photograph was of Hugh Gilmour running. The evidence discussed above3shows that Hugh Gilmour started running more or less immediately he had been hit and thus only a short time before Robert White photographed him. Robert White was asked about the time lapse between photographing Michael Kelly and photographing Hugh Gilmour. He told us that he thought that it would have been a very short time, even less than a minute, but he did not honestly know.4In these circumstances, we consider that it is probable that only a short time elapsed between the shooting of Michael Kelly and that of Hugh Gilmour.

1 Paragraphs 86.43–44

2 Paragraph 86.44

3 Paragraphs 86.94–143

4 Day 137/81-82

86.150 As we have noted above,1Michael McCusker recorded in his Keville interview that after leaving the Rossville Flats car park after soldiers had started firing there, he went to the rubble barricade and there talked to John Young (who was shot dead a short time later), who told him that two people had been shot at the back of the flats, ie in the car park. This was before Michael McCusker, according to this account, ran to the southern end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats and found a young man (in our view clearly Hugh Gilmour) lying there.

1 Paragraphs 86.126–127

86.151 This evidence leads us to conclude firstly, that Hugh Gilmour was hit before John Young and secondly, that the shooting in Sector 2 had started before John Young was hit. Michael McCusker told this Inquiry1that John Young told him when they met at the rubble barricade, not only that two people had been shot in the car park but also that one of them (Michael Bradley) had been taken (as indeed was the case) to a house in Joseph Place. In his written evidence to this Inquiry,2 Sean McCallion told us that after two people had been shot in the area of the car park of the Rossville Flats he came out through Block 1 into Rossville Street, where there were still rioters at the rubble barricade and no shooting was taking place. In our view this evidence makes it probable that people had been shot in Sector 2 before either Michael Kelly or Hugh Gilmour had been shot in Sector 3.

1 AM160.2

2 AM492.1-AM492.2

What Hugh Gilmour was doing when he was shot

86.152 As will have been seen from our examination of the witnesses who gave accounts of seeing Hugh Gilmour shot, there are varying accounts of what he was doing at the time. From the nature of his chest wound, he must have been more or less sideways on to the soldier who shot him. We consider that it is probable that shortly before he was shot Hugh Gilmour had been throwing stones at or towards the soldiers, and it is possible that he was about to throw another at the moment when he was shot.

86.153 Earlier in this report1we considered in detail the evidence of Bombardier 015, who was observing events from one of the upper windows of the Peter England shirt factory in Little James Street.

1 Paragraphs 85.48–67

86.154 To a significant degree this evidence is consistent with that discussed above.1It is inconsistent with the evidence of the shooting of any of the other Sector 3 casualties. Since we are sure, for reasons given later in this report,2that there were no additional unidentified casualties in Sector 3, we are of the view that Bombardier 015 was describing the shooting of Hugh Gilmour. Later in this report,3we reach the conclusion, for the reasons we give there, that Hugh Gilmour was shot by Private U, who was at the northern end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

1 Paragraphs 86.88–143

2 Chapter 87

3 Paragraph 89.46

86.155 We are sure that at no stage was Hugh Gilmour armed with any form of lethal weapon. Many of the witnesses to whom we have referred above expressly said so; and there is no evidence that to our minds suggests the contrary. We note that it was implicitly suggested by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers that PIRA 14, PIRA 26 and the late Colm Keenan – who at the time of Bloody Sunday were members of the Provisional IRA and who, on the accounts of the two who remain alive, were close to Hugh Gilmour when he was shot – may themselves have been armed.1PIRA 14 and PIRA 26 denied that this was the case2and we have nothing that suggests to us that their evidence on this point should be rejected. If the suggestion is that Hugh Gilmour was shot by accident by a soldier legitimately aiming at one of these individuals, we reject it, because to our minds it is unlikely in the extreme that anyone would have been so foolish as to produce a weapon in full view of a number of soldiers not far away.

1 FS7.1691

2 APIRA14.4; Day 421/83; APIRA26.4; Day 425/59-60

Where Hugh Gilmour was taken after he was shot

86.156 Hugh Gilmour lay at the corner of the south end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats until he was carried to the first ambulance that arrived in Rossville Street, and then taken in that ambulance to Altnagelvin Hospital, as we describe later in this report.1

1 Paragraphs 124.5–6

Michael McDaid

Biographical details

86.157 Michael McDaid was 20 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He was the second youngest member of his family and lived with his parents in Tyrconnell Street. He worked as a barman at the Celtic Bar in Stanley’s Walk.1

1 AB60.1; AG5.4; AM162.1; ED40.6

Prior movements

86.158 Michael McDaid’s brother Kevin told us in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that they both had lunch at home in Tyrconnell Street. After lunch, they both went on the march, but separately.

1 AM167.1

86.159 William Leo Carlin told us in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that he went on the march with Michael McDaid. It appears that they reached lower William Street together, but when the crowd began to run away from Barrier 14, William Leo Carlin ran down Chamberlain Street and lost contact with Michael McDaid.

1 AC40.1

86.160 Donal Moran, having recorded in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that he went on the march with Michael McDaid, corrected this in his oral evidence to this Inquiry2 to say only that he met Michael McDaid somewhere in William Street.

1 AM421.1

2 Day 153/50

86.161 A photograph taken by Constable Robert S Simpson and two photographs taken by Constable A Brown of the RUC, all of which we reproduce below, show Michael McDaid at the front of the crowd at Barrier 14. In the first photograph he is shown linking hands with others to contain the crowd.

86.162 The following photograph taken by an unknown photographer, which was obtained by the Inquiry from the Sunday Times, shows Michael McDaid on the waste ground south of Sackville Street, near Barrier 13, next to men who were using sheets of corrugated metal as shields. He has his back to the camera. It is not clear exactly what he was doing when this photograph was taken.

86.163 None of these photographs shows Michael McDaid with a stone in his hand. However, the representatives of the family of Michael McDaid have accepted that he may … have been throwing stones at soldiers at the Barrier [14] .1 We are unable to determine whether or not he was doing so.

1 FS1.1511; FS1.1514

86.164 A man who appears to be Michael McDaid is shown in RTÉ footage1 standing in front of Barrier 14 during the rioting, apparently with a stick or metal bar in his hand.

1 Vid 25 00.08

86.165 Michael McDaid can be seen in profile on the right in Liam Mailey’s photograph of soldiers and Army vehicles soon after their arrival in Rossville Street, which we reproduce below, and is shown in Liam Mailey’s next photograph, also reproduced below, standing and facing the soldiers. These photographs show that at this stage Michael McDaid was to the north of the rubble barricade. As we have discussed earlier in this report,1 these photographs were taken before Private 017 had begun firing baton rounds on the western side of Rossville Street.

1 Paragraphs 69.51–58

86.166 We have shown above1 the two photographs that Robert White took of Michael Kelly lying behind the rubble barricade. The second of these, which we reproduce below, shows Michael McDaid walking south through the rubble barricade. We do not know what he had been doing immediately before this photograph was taken.

1 Paragraph 86.43

Medical and scientific evidence

Wound pathology and ballistics

86.167 Dr John Press, then the Assistant State Pathologist for Northern Ireland, conducted an autopsy of the body of Michael McDaid on 31st January 1972 at Altnagelvin Hospital.1 Two RUC photographers were also present.2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan, the experts on pathology and ballistics engaged by this Inquiry, considered the notes, report and photographs from this autopsy. Dr Press, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan all gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. Dr Press also appeared before the Widgery Inquiry.

1 WT8.56; D509

2 D88

86.168 In his autopsy report,1 Dr Press described the following two gunshot wounds:

(i) An oval entrance wound, measuring 8mm x 5mm, on the left cheek, centred 5cm in front of, and 1cm below, the outer opening of the ear, and 61in above the soles of the feet. The upper margin shelved outwards and was bordered by an arc of abrasion up to 5mm broad. The lower margin was undermined. There were two superficial lacerations at the lower border, each about 3mm long. A probe inserted into the wound extended downwards at about 45° to the horizontal plane, with an inclination backwards of about 30° and a deviation of about 25° to the right.

(ii) A roughly oval exit wound, measuring 3cm x 1.5cm, on the right side of the back, centred 29cm above the level of the iliac crest and 19cm to the right of the midline, and 52in above the soles of the feet. The long axis of the wound was horizontal. The upper margin was undermined while the lower margin shelved outwards. The margins were somewhat ragged and the wound was bordered by a zone of patchy bruising, up to 3cm wide.

1 D88

86.169 The internal injuries found by Dr Press are described in his report1 and summarised in his conclusions about the fatal injury, which are as follows:2

Death was due to a gunshot wound of the neck and chest. A bullet had entered the left cheek about two inches in front of the outer opening of the ear, fracturing the left side of the lower jaw. It had then passed through the mouth, the spine in the neck, fracturing the three lower neck vertebrae and severing the spinal cord, before entering the right chest cavity, fracturing the first two ribs. It had then traversed the upper part of the right lung before leaving the body through the back of the right side of the chest. The injury to the spinal cord would have caused his rapid death.

The injuries were of a type caused by a bullet of high velocity. There was nothing to indicate that the weapon had been fired at close range.

The track of the bullet through the body was downwards and backwards at an angle of about 45° to the horizontal plane and a slight deviation to the right.

If he were erect at the time he was shot then the bullet must have come from above, to his left and slightly in front of him.

1 D90

2 D92

86.170 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1in his written statement to this Inquiry,2and in his oral evidence to this Inquiry,3Dr Press confirmed the conclusions set out in his autopsy report. He said4that there was a margin of error of at least 5° either way in the estimation of the angle at which the bullet passed through the body.

1 WT8.56-WT8.57

2 D509

3 Day 205/160-161

4 Day 205/193-194

86.171 In their report, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan reached conclusions which they summarised as follows:1

Michael McDaid was struck by one bullet which hit his left cheek and penetrated through his neck and right chest before exiting at the back.

Assuming the Normal Anatomical Position the track has passed downwards, backwards and from left to right.

It is likely that Michael McDaid’s head was turned to the left at the time he was shot since this orientation gives the most direct track of the bullet through the body.

1 E2.25

86.172 The photographs of Michael McDaid’s body taken in the mortuary show the wounds described by Dr Press. We have examined these photographs but do not reproduce them here. A diagram appended to the report of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan1 illustrates the position of the wounds.

1 E2.71

86.173 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan were invited to consider the theory that the angles at which Michael McDaid, William Nash and John Young were hit by bullets indicated that these three casualties had been shot from the City Walls. The essence of their conclusions was that it was impossible from consideration of the pathology of the wounds and of measurements of the locality taken by the Northern Ireland Ordnance Survey to say either that it was more or that it was less likely that the fatal shots were fired from the City Walls than that they were fired from Rossville Street. They stated in their report:1

Whether the shots were fired downwards from the walls or horizontally at ground level from the Kells Walk direction the deceased would have been bending forward for the shots to have caused the tracks that were found.

If facing towards the walls the deceased would have to have bent forwards at an angle of approximately 40° to align the track through the body with the angle from the ground by Glenfada Park to the walls.

If facing towards a gun at ground level the deceased would have to have bent forwards at an angle of approximately 45° to align the track through the body with a horizontal trajectory.

The difference in angle of shot is therefore only 5°, well within the possible error of measurement.

Consequently, our opinion is that the shots which killed WILLIAM NASH, JOHN YOUNG and MICHAEL McDAID could have been fired from either the street or from the City Walls.

However, it is clear from the injuries that all three men were facing in the general direction from which the shots came. It follows that if the shots originated from the City Walls the deceased would have to have had their backs towards Kells Walk at the time they were shot. Conversely if the shots originated from the Kells Walk side of the barricade they would have to have been facing in that direction. Witness testimony and not pathology or ballistics is therefore the key to resolving this matter.

1 E2.65-66

86.174 Later in this report1 we consider whether there was shooting from the City Walls.

1 Chapter 167

86.175 Herbert Donnelly, then an Assistant Scientific Officer in the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science in Belfast, examined the clothing of Michael McDaid under the direction of Dr John Martin, then a Principal Scientific Officer in the same department.1 In his report dated 21st February 1972,2 Dr Martin set out this finding:

A hole approx 1" x 1" in the right back of the jacket with corresponding damage to the undergarments is consistent with bullet exit.

1 D82-D83; D741.60; Day 225/62-63

2 D79

86.176 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan also examined the jacket of Michael McDaid, which had been retained by his family. Photographs were taken of the clothing.1 In their report,2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan said:

As can be seen in the photographs of Michael McDaid’s jacket, there was a bullet exit hole just to the rear of the seam behind the right armpit. The right side seam was split and there was heavy bloodstaining in the area of the lower left back of the jacket as well as smaller patches elsewhere.

The position of the exit hole in the jacket is consistent with the position of the exit wound in the deceased’s back.

1 F1.1-6; F1.8-9

2 E2.25

Tests for firearm discharge and explosives residue

86.177 Dr Martin tested the jacket that Michael McDaid was wearing when he was shot, and swabs taken from his hands, for the presence of lead particles. Dr Martin detected what he considered to be a higher than normal density of lead particles on the jacket. He also detected a large particle of lead on the swab from the back of the right hand, but no lead particles on the other hand swabs. He stated in his report the conclusion that the nature and distribution of lead particles on the swabs and jacket was similar to that produced by discharge gases from firearms.1Dr Martin also detected lead particles on Michael McDaid’s trousers, at levels within the same range as those found on the jacket, but he did not comment on these in his report as he only examined the trousers at a later stage.2

1 D79

2 D81; D605-D606; WT9.36

86.178 In his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry1and in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,2John Bradley said that he had employed Michael McDaid and knew that he was left-handed.

1 AB60.1

2 WT7.82

86.179 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1Dr Martin said that the results of his tests for lead particles were consistent with Michael McDaid having been handling a firearm. He said that the knowledge that Michael McDaid was left-handed would not make any essential difference to this conclusion, although the absence of lead on his left hand would have been unusual if Michael McDaid had been firing with that hand and if the hand had been uncovered. Dr Martin said that it was possible that the particle on the right hand had come from a fragmenting bullet,2and that a higher than normal density of lead particles on the jacket would have been expected if Michael McDaid had been lying in an area where guns were being discharged or bullets were ricocheting.3Dr Martin acknowledged that the particle on the right hand and the general distribution of particles on the jacket and trousers were consistent with contamination from the firing of a weapon up to 30 feet away.4

1 WT9.12

2 WT9.19-WT9.20

3 WT9.30

4 WT9.35-WT9.36

86.180 Dr John Lloyd, the independent scientific expert engaged by this Inquiry, summarised in his report1his overall conclusions about the tests for lead particles conducted by Dr Martin. He considered that, in view of the lack of control testing and the likelihood of spurious contamination, Dr Martin’s results were of no evidential value.

1 E1.51-E1.52

86.181 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Martin accepted that unless there was evidence from other sources to indicate an association between any of the deceased and a weapon, it would be unwise to interpret his findings as other than contamination .

1 Day 226/2

86.182 In relation to Michael McDaid, Dr Lloyd said in his report1that the APC in which the body was transported to Altnagelvin Hospital was likely to have been heavily and continuously contaminated with firearms residue. He said that the results obtained by Dr Martin in this case were explicable solely on this basis . In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2Dr Lloyd confirmed that he meant that this could by itself explain the contamination, rather than that it was the only possible explanation.

1 E1.44-E1.45

2 Day 227/44-46

86.183 Dr Martin said in his oral evidence to this Inquiry1that he agreed with Dr Lloyd’s views on this matter.

1 Day 226/97-98

86.184 Dr Lloyd said in his report1that the particle found on the right hand could well have been derived from contamination of the clothing, and was not evidence that Michael McDaid or anyone close to him had been using a firearm. Dr Martin was prepared to accept that this was so.2

1 E1.44

2 Day 226/96-97

86.185 Alan Hall, then a Senior Scientific Officer in the same department as Dr Martin, examined the outer clothing of Michael McDaid for explosives residue. None was detected.1

1 D75

86.186 In these circumstances we consider that there is no valid scientific evidence that Michael McDaid had been handling firearms or had been close to someone who was handling a firearm, or that he had been in contact with explosives.

Michael McDaid’s clothing

86.187 Michael McDaid was wearing a green checked sports jacket, a blue shirt, blue and orange tie and grey trousers.1

1 D73

Where Michael McDaid was when he was shot

86.188 Michael McDaid was shot dead at or very close to the rubble barricade. In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, Alexander Nash, who was himself later wounded at the rubble barricade, said that he went out to his son William, who was lying dead Just in the middle of the wee barricade . He said that his son was lying between two other bodies, which he confirmed were those of Michael McDaid and John Young.1

1 WT8.2-7

86.189 Part of the ABC film footage shows a man raising his arm behind the rubble barricade.1We are sure that this is Alexander Nash and that he was close to where his son was lying. We show below a still from this film.

1 Vid 48 10.49

86.190 We have no photographs or film that show the bodies of Michael McDaid, William Nash and John Young at the rubble barricade. However, from the foregoing evidence we are satisfied that they were shot somewhere close behind the western side of the rubble barricade. As will be seen, there is other evidence that supports this conclusion.

When Michael McDaid was shot

86.191 Michael McDaid must have been shot after Michael Kelly, since in Robert White’s photograph shown above1he can be seen walking through the rubble barricade at the stage when Michael Kelly was lying on the ground. He was also, in our view, shot after Hugh Gilmour, since, as discussed above,2Michael McCusker recalled speaking to John Young just before going to the south end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats where he saw Hugh Gilmour lying on the ground. For reasons we give below,3we have concluded that Michael McDaid, William Nash and John Young were all shot within a very short space of time.

1 Paragraph 86.166

2 Paragraphs 86.126–129 and 86.150–151

3 Paragraphs 86.287–364

What Michael McDaid was doing when he was shot

86.192 The evidence of what Michael McDaid was doing when he was shot is confused and inconsistent. We return to consider this matter1after discussing the shooting of William Nash and John Young.

1 Paragraphs 86.287–364

Whether Michael McDaid (and William Nash and John Young) were shot from the City Walls

86.193 It is convenient at this point to deal with the theory, canvassed at the outset of this Inquiry but not in the end pursued by any of the interested parties, that Michael McDaid, as well as William Nash and John Young, were shot from the City Walls. As already noted, we consider later in this report1whether there was firing from the City Walls.

1 Chapter 167

86.194 This theory, which was based on the tracks of the bullets that passed through the bodies of the three casualties, was put forward before this Inquiry was established, by Robert Breglio, a ballistics expert from New York City, and Dr Raymond McClean, a local general practitioner who had attended some of the casualties in the Bogside on Bloody Sunday and had also attended many of the autopsies. Mr Hugh Thomas, a consultant surgeon from Merthyr Tydfil, also supported the theory that these three casualties were shot from above. He told Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News in 1997 that the shot could only have come from a higher level 1 and in his written statement to this Inquiry said: … in my opinion the chances of the three men shot at the barricade stooping to the same angle, being shot in exactly the same pattern … from in front, and especially from ground level must be minute .2

1 X1.6.9

2 M90.4

86.195 As we have already noted, the suggestion was considered by Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan,1 whose conclusion was that it was impossible from consideration of the pathology of the wounds and of the measurements of the locality taken by the Northern Ireland Ordnance Survey to say either that it was more or that it was less likely that the three fatal shots were fired from the City Walls than that they were fired from Rossville Street. We accept this conclusion.

1 E2.0065

86.196 It is clear from the injuries they sustained that all three men were facing in the general direction from which the shots were fired.

86.197 As will be seen,1 while there is some disagreement among the civilian witnesses as to the direction in which Michael McDaid, William Nash and John Young were facing immediately before, and when, they were shot, it is our conclusion that the weight of the evidence shows that the three were facing north towards the soldiers in Rossville Street. As will have been seen,2 several photographs taken on Bloody Sunday show civilians at the barricade, in the main, facing the soldiers in Rossville Street or fleeing west towards Glenfada Park North. No soldier has acknowledged firing from the City Walls towards the rubble barricade. We consider it unlikely in the extreme that all three of these casualties would have been facing south, when there were soldiers north of them in the Rossville Street area. For these reasons, we are sure that Michael McDaid, William Nash and John Young were shot from the area of Rossville Street north of the rubble barricade when they were more or less facing the soldiers who were in that area.

1 Paragraphs 86.287–364 2Paragraphs 68.32 and 86.52

Whether Michael McDaid was arrested and put into an Army vehicle from which he escaped

86.198 It is also convenient to consider at this point the evidence that some witnesses gave to the effect that Michael McDaid had been arrested and put into the back of an Army vehicle from which he had escaped before he was shot.

86.199 This evidence is irreconcilable with the bulk of the civilian and photographic evidence. John Begley, who made the claim in two statements in 1972,1 told us in his written statement to this Inquiry that he was inebriated when he made those statements and now has no recollection of the day.2 Ciaran Donnelly, who described the arrest of a youth in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry and said that he thought that he had been told at some stage that the youth’s name was McDaid,3acknowledged in his oral evidence to this Inquiry that what he witnessed had looked extremely like the scene shown in Jeffrey Morris’s photographs of the arrest of William John Dillon,4 which we have reproduced above in our consideration of the events of Sector 2.5 At one stage in his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Frankie Boyle said that Michael McDaid was arrested by three soldiers and placed in an APC south of the barricade,6 though elsewhere in his evidence he told us that the APC was On the waste ground facing Rossville Flats. 7 He said that CS gas was fired into the APC before Michael McDaid escaped, only to be shot, apparently in the back, within 20 yards of the APC.8 However, no APC moved south of the rubble barricade until, as we explain later in this report,9 Lieutenant N’s APC was driven forward to collect three bodies from the barricade, including that of Michael McDaid, who had not been shot in the back. The photograph we have shown above10 of Michael McDaid walking through the rubble barricade, appearing composed and neatly dressed, hardly depicts a person who has just escaped from arrest after being exposed to CS gas. We believe that these witnesses and others who described the purported arrest of Michael McDaid were mistaken. In our view they had either confused Michael McDaid with someone whom they had seen being arrested, or had come to believe that they had seen something which we are sure that they did not.

1 AB30.1; AB30.2

2 AB30.5

3 M22.2

4 Day 71/25

5 Chapter 33

6 Day 122/59-60

7 Day 122/58

8 AB48.3

9 Paragraphs 122.1–128

10 Paragraph 86.166

Where Michael McDaid was taken after he was shot

86.200 Michael McDaid lay at the rubble barricade until he was picked up by soldiers and put into an APC, together with William Nash and John Young. These three casualties were then taken in the APC to Altnagelvin Hospital. We deal in detail below1with the circumstances in which the bodies were collected and with the manner in which they were handled.

1 Chapter 122

William Nash

Biographical details

86.201 William Nash, sometimes known as Stiff Nash, was 19 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He lived in Dunree Gardens, Creggan, with his parents, four of his seven brothers, and his five sisters. One of his brothers had been married on the day before Bloody Sunday and the celebrations had continued late into the night. Their mother had missed the wedding, as she had suffered a heart attack a few days earlier and was recovering in Altnagelvin Hospital. William Nash was employed as a docker.1

1 AL34.1; AN2.1-AN2.2; AN6.1; AN7.1; Day 149/59-62

Prior movements

86.202 William Nash’s cousin Charles Christopher Nash told us in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that they went on the march together and became separated somewhere near Barrier 14.

1 AN3.1

86.203 According to a Sunday Times research note, William Nash went on the march with his friends Pat Ward and Tommy Hazlett. His brother Paddy Nash said in his oral evidence to this Inquiry1 that a journalist from the Sunday Times Insight Team had interviewed his mother. We therefore consider it probable that Mrs Nash was the source of this piece of information. Paddy Nash confirmed that it was likely that his brother had been on the march with Pat Ward but said that he did not recall Tommy Hazlett.2 Another brother, John Nash, said in his interview with Jimmy McGovern3 that he thought that his brother had gone on the march with Pat Ward but not with Tommy Hazlett, who had been ill. Neither Pat Ward nor Tommy Hazlett gave evidence.

1 Day 149/63-64

2 Day 149/69

3 AN6.16

86.204 Three photographs taken by Constable A Brown of the RUC, a photograph taken by Frederick Hoare of the Belfast Telegraph and a photograph taken by John Walters of the Daily Mail show William Nash in front of Barrier 14 while rioting was in progress. Counsel for the Nash family accepted that in the fourth of these photographs he is throwing something ,1 though to us it looks as though the photograph was taken just after he had thrown something.

1 Day 50/133

86.205 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, John Nash identified his brother William as the man standing with his back to the south wall of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North in the following photograph taken by Ciaran Donnelly.1

1 Day 97/89

86.206 With rather less confidence, John Nash identified his brother at the corner of the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North in an earlier photograph, also taken by Ciaran Donnelly.1

1 Day 97/90-91; AN6.6

86.207 It is difficult (as John Nash himself acknowledged) to be sure of the identification of his brother in the earlier photograph,1 which shows the group behind the rubble barricade. Nor are we convinced that William Nash appears in the later photograph (the first of the two reproduced above2), which, as we explain later in this report,3 shows the group carrying the body of Michael Kelly, which had been lying near the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, where Fr Bradley had given Michael Kelly the last rites. Our reasons for not accepting this identification are as follows.

1 Paragraph 86.206

2 Paragraph 86.205

3 Paragraph 92.4

86.208 The scene shortly before this photograph was taken, when Fr Bradley and others were around the body of Michael Kelly at the south-eastern corner of Glenfada Park North, is shown in two photographs taken by Liam Mailey.

86.209 The next photograph that Liam Mailey took was the following.

86.210 An examination of the different positions of people seen in this photograph as compared with the immediately preceding photograph1shows that these two photographs were taken within a very short time of each other. When the first was taken, Michael Kelly’s body was still on the ground. Barry Liddy is shown in that photograph kneeling on the right of the group around Michael Kelly, wearing a hat. A tall lady in a trouser suit (Helen Johnston2) is behind him, looking towards Rossville Street. The second man to the right of Helen Johnston is a tall man wearing a tie. In the next photograph3 the body of Michael Kelly has been lifted but not moved very far. Fr Bradley and Helen Johnston have moved towards the south wall of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North. Barry Liddy has stood up and the tall man has moved slightly to the north. In the photograph taken by Ciaran Donnelly,4 which is said to show William Nash, the body of Michael Kelly has been carried further to the north. A significantly larger group has gathered at the south wall and the tall man appears to have moved to the western corner of the wall and turned round in order to look at the body. This can only have happened after Liam Mailey had taken the photograph showing Fr Bradley walking in the direction of Rossville Street.5

1 Paragraph 86.208

2 AJ11.5

3 Paragraph 86.209

4 Paragraph 86.205

5 Paragraph 86.209

86.211 Fr Bradley told us that he thought that this photograph1 showed him walking towards the gable end having been told that someone had been shot at the barricade .2 As we discuss further when considering the events of Sector 4,3 Fr Bradley said that he was about to accompany those who had lifted Michael Kelly when his attention was drawn to three or four other people lying at the rubble barricade and he made his way in that direction and found that they had been shot. He recalled that during this period he could hear shooting, and he had the strong impression that this was coming from the northern end of Rossville Street.4

1 Paragraph 86.209

2 Day 140/117

3 Paragraph 92.3

4 H1.30; WT4.36; H1.8-10; Day 140/115-122

86.212 Fr O’Keeffe, who was also there, thought that he had seen bodies at the rubble barricade by the time this photograph was taken.1

1 Day 127/108

86.213 The only casualties of gunfire who could have been lying at the rubble barricade at this stage were William Nash, Michael McDaid and John Young. In these circumstances we are of the view that the identification of William Nash in Ciaran Donnelly’s photograph1 of the group carrying Michael Kelly is mistaken.

1 Paragraph 86.205

Medical and scientific evidence

Wound pathology and ballistics

86.214 Dr John Press, then the Assistant State Pathologist for Northern Ireland, conducted an autopsy of the body of William Nash on 31st January 1972 at Altnagelvin Hospital.1 Three other doctors and two RUC photographers were also present.2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan, the experts on pathology and ballistics engaged by this Inquiry, considered the notes, report and photographs from this autopsy. Dr Press, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan all gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. Dr Press also appeared before the Widgery Inquiry.

1 WT8.56; D509

2 D118

86.215 In his autopsy report,1 Dr Press described the following two gunshot wounds:

(i) A round entrance wound, 7mm in diameter, on the right side of the body, centred 4cm above, and 6.5cm medial to, the nipple, and 53in above the soles of the feet. The wound was bordered by a zone of abrasion, 1–2mm broad. A probe inserted into the wound passed downwards at 45° to the horizontal plane, with an inclination backwards of about 40° and no deviation to the left or right.

(ii) A roughly oval exit wound, measuring 17mm x 7mm, on the right side of the back, centred 4.5cm above the iliac crest and 4.5cm to the right of the midline, about midway between the iliac crest and the 12th right rib, and 42in above the soles of the feet. The long axis of the wound was directed downwards and to the left. The margins were slightly ragged. There was an arc of abrasion up to 4mm broad along the lower margin of the wound.

1 D118

86.216 The internal injuries found by Dr Press are described in his report1 and summarised in his conclusions about the fatal injury, which are as follows:2

Death was due to a gunshot wound of the chest. A bullet had entered the right side of the chest about 1½ inches above and about 2½ inches to the left of the nipple. It had grazed the upper border of the fourth right rib as it entered the right chest cavity. It had then passed through the front margin of the upper part of the right lung, through the right atrium of the heart, the heart sac before entering the abdominal cavity through the diaphragm, lacerating the inferior vena cava, the largest vein in the body, as it did so. It had then lacerated the liver, the right suprarenal gland and the right kidney before leaving the body through the right side of the back wall of the abdomen. The combined effect of these injuries would have caused his rapid death.

The injuries were of a type caused by a bullet of high velocity. There was nothing to indicate that the weapon had been fired at close range.

The track of the bullet through the body was from front to back with an inclination downwards of 45° to the horizontal plane but no deviation to right or left.

If he were erect at the time he was shot then the bullet must have come from in front and slightly above him.

1 D120-D121

2 D123

86.217 Dr Press also described a number of minor external injuries.1 His findings about these injuries were as follows:2

Abrasions on the forehead, neck, right knee and right shin were probably caused when he collapsed. They were of trivial nature and played no part in the death.

1 D119-D120

2 D123

86.218 A test on a sample of William Nash’s blood showed that the alcohol content was 121mg/100ml.1Dr Press commented in his autopsy report that this concentration was not high and would not have accelerated death.2

1 D108; D116-D117; D121-D122

2 D123

86.219 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Dr Press confirmed the conclusions set out in his autopsy report, except that he said that his description of the direction from which the bullet must have come would have been more accurate if downwards had been substituted for slightly above him .

1 WT8.59-WT8.61

86.220 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Dr Press referred to the description in his autopsy report of an arc of abrasion around the wound on the right side of the back. He said:

Although it is not unusual to get an abrasion at an exit wound site, abrasion of the wound is normally associated with an entrance wound. I have been asked therefore to consider whether it is possible that the wound in the right side of the back was an entry wound. I think this is very unlikely in the circumstances. The reason for this is that the wound on the right chest has the typical appearance of an entrance wound and the most likely explanation is that a single bullet entered from the front and exited the right back. The wound on the back also has all the characteristics of an exit wound. It is larger than the wound on the chest and is less regular in outline being roughly oval. I do not believe the arc of abrasion on the lower margin of the wound is significant in the circumstances.

1 D512-D513

86.221 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Press agreed with a suggestion that the abrasions on the neck of William Nash could have been caused when the body was manhandled after death. He said that there was a margin of error of at least 5° either way in the estimation of the angle at which the bullet passed through the body.2

1 Day 205/183-186

2 Day 205/193-194

86.222 In their report,1Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan observed that the mortuary photographs revealed more extensive abrasion around the exit wound than Dr Press had described in his autopsy report. They noted that the abrasion appeared to occupy the whole circumference of the wound and to be more prominent at the upper right border. Splits, both deep and superficial, could be seen within the ring of abrasion. They summarised their overall conclusions as follows:

A single bullet in the right chest struck WILLIAM NASH. Assuming the Normal Anatomical Position the angle of impact is front to back and from above downwards.

The appearance of the exit abrasion strongly suggests a shored wound, possibly due to clothing pulled tight against the skin.

The appearances of the other injuries are consistent with minor blunt trauma. The injuries to the shins are typical of running into or tripping over blunt objects. The injuries to the head are also minor and are due to contact with a blunt object or objects. They are consistent with a fall or collapse to the ground.

There is nothing in the appearances, patterns or distribution of these injuries alone or together that would indicate that they were deliberately inflicted.

1 E2.27

86.223 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Shepherd said that clothing would only have caused shoring of the exit wound if it had been pulled tightly across the back for some reason. It would not have been enough that the clothing was tight-fitting. Dr Shepherd said that there were many possible reasons why clothing might have been pulled tightly across William Nash’s back. One explanation might be that he was bending when he was shot.

1 Day 229/10-12

86.224 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1after reviewing the photographs, Dr Press said that he agreed with Dr Shepherd that the abrasion around the exit wound was more extensive than he had described in his report. Dr Press also agreed that shoring of the wound was the most likely explanation of the abrasion. We accept this conclusion.

1 Day 205/168-172

86.225 The photographs of William Nash’s body taken in the mortuary show the wounds and minor external injuries described by Dr Press. We have examined these photographs but do not reproduce them here. A diagram appended to the report of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan1illustrates the position of these wounds and injuries.

1 E2.72

86.226 In relation to William Nash, as in relation to Michael McDaid and John Young, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan reached the conclusion that it was impossible from consideration of the pathology of the wounds and of measurements of the locality taken by the Northern Ireland Ordnance Survey to say either that it was more or that it was less likely that the fatal shot was fired from the City Walls than that it was fired from Rossville Street.1For the reasons that we have already given,2we have rejected the theory that any of these three casualties was shot from the City Walls.

1 E2.65 2Paragraphs 86.193–197

86.227 Herbert Donnelly, then an Assistant Scientific Officer in the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science in Belfast, examined the clothing of William Nash under the direction of Dr John Martin, then a Principal Scientific Officer in the same department.1 In his report dated 21st February 1972,2 Dr Martin set out these findings:

A small hole in the front of the waistcoat and shirt with corresponding damage to the undergarments is consistent with bullet entry. A larger hole in the back of the jacket with similar undergarment damage is consistent with bullet exit.

1 D111-D113; D741.60; Day 225/63-64

2 D108

Tests for firearm discharge and explosives residue

86.228 Dr Martin tested the jacket that William Nash was wearing when he was shot, and swabs taken from his hands, for the presence of lead particles. He detected lead particles on the swabs from the web, back and palm of the left hand, but none on the swabs from the right hand and no significant number on the jacket. Dr Martin stated in his report the conclusion that the nature and distribution of lead particles on the swabs from the left hand was similar to that produced by exposure to discharge gases from firearms.1Dr Martin also detected lead particles on William Nash’s trousers2but did not comment on these in his report.

1 D108

2 D110; D605-D606

86.229 In Eamonn McCann’s book Bloody Sunday in Derry: What Really Happened,1William Nash’s sister Margaret McGilloway is reported to have said that William Nash was left-handed and that the lead particles were found on his right hand. She may have meant to say the opposite, since the lead particles were in fact detected on the left hand; and in his written statement to this Inquiry,2her brother Paddy Nash said that William Nash was right-handed. Counsel for the Nash family accepted3 that Frederick Hoare’s photograph (reproduced above)4 shows William Nash throwing something . The photograph may actually have been taken just after he had thrown something, but it appears in any event that the action was performed with his right hand. In our view William Nash was right-handed.

1 Eamonn McCann, Bloody Sunday in Derry: What Really Happened, Dingle: Brandon Book Publishers Ltd, 1992, pp88–89

2 AN7.4

3 Day 50/133

4 Paragraph 86.204

86.230 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1Dr Martin confirmed what he had said in his report. He also said that the quantity of lead particles found on the left hand of William Nash was as he would have expected it to be if the deceased had been holding that hand forward of the breech mechanism of a weapon while using his gloved right hand to fire it.2

1 WT9.30; WT9.35

2 WT9.13

86.231 The clothing removed from the body of William Nash at the autopsy did not include a glove.1There is no evidence that he was wearing a glove on his right hand when he was shot.

1 D119

86.232 Dr John Lloyd, the independent scientific expert engaged by this Inquiry, summarised in his report1his overall conclusions about the tests for lead particles conducted by Dr Martin. He considered that, in view of the lack of control testing and the likelihood of spurious contamination, Dr Martin’s results were of no evidential value.

1 E1.51-E1.52

86.233 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Martin accepted that unless there was evidence from other sources to indicate an association between any of the deceased and a weapon, it would be unwise to interpret his findings as other than contamination .

1 Day 226/2

86.234 In relation to William Nash, Dr Lloyd repeated in his report1the observation that he had made in the case of Michael McDaid,2that the APC in which the body was transported to Altnagelvin Hospital was likely to have been heavily and continuously contaminated with firearms residue. He said that the results obtained by Dr Martin were explicable solely on this basis . In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,3Dr Lloyd confirmed that he meant that this could by itself explain the contamination, rather than that it was the only possible explanation.

1 E1.48

2 E1.45

3 Day 227/45-46

86.235 Dr Martin said in his oral evidence to this Inquiry1that he agreed with Dr Lloyd’s views on this matter.

1 Day 226/97-98

86.236 Dr Lloyd pointed out in his report1that in the laboratory notes2Dr Martin had recorded that he had detected five lead particles on the jacket of William Nash and 14 on the trousers. Dr Lloyd said3that it was the general, but not the invariable, rule that the deposition of firearms discharge residue became weaker as the distance from the point of origin increased. Hence the results in William Nash’s case could more readily be explained on the assumption that the source of the particles, or at least the majority of the particles, was other than the firing of a gun by the deceased. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,4Dr Martin accepted that this was fair reasoning .

1 E1.48

2 D110-D111

3 E1.32-E1.33

4 Day 226/82-85

86.237 Alan Hall, then a Senior Scientific Officer in the same department as Dr Martin, examined the outer clothing of William Nash for explosives residue. None was detected.1

1 D105

86.238 In these circumstances we consider that there is no valid scientific evidence that William Nash had been handling firearms or had been close to someone who was handling a firearm, or that he had been in contact with explosives.

William Nash’s clothing

86.239 William Nash was wearing a brown corduroy jacket, brown waistcoat, yellow flowered shirt and tie, and brown trousers.1 The jacket and trousers are described in a police report as a suit.2

1 D102

2 D103

Where William Nash was when he was shot

86.240 For the reasons we have given when discussing the shooting of Michael McDaid,1we are satisfied that William Nash was shot just behind the western side of the rubble barricade, close to Michael McDaid and John Young.

1 Paragraphs 86.188–190

When William Nash was shot

86.241 For reasons given below,1we are sure that William Nash was shot at about the same time as Michael McDaid and John Young. It follows in our view, for the reasons we have given when discussing the shooting of Michael McDaid,2that he was shot after Michael Kelly and Hugh Gilmour.

1 Paragraphs 86.287–364 2Paragraph 86.191

What William Nash was doing when he was shot

86.242 The evidence of what William Nash was doing when he was shot is confused and inconsistent. We return to consider this matter1after discussing the shooting of John Young.

1 Paragraphs 86.287–364

Where William Nash was taken after he was shot

86.243 William Nash lay at the rubble barricade until he was picked up by soldiers and put into an APC, together with Michael McDaid and John Young. These three casualties were then taken in the APC to Altnagelvin Hospital. We deal in detail below1with the circumstances in which the bodies were collected and with the manner in which they were handled.

1 Chapter 122

John Young

Biographical details

86.244 John Young was 17 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He was the youngest member of his family and lived in Westway, Creggan, with his parents and one of his three sisters. He was employed as a salesman in the men’s clothing shop of John Temple Ltd in Waterloo Place.1

1 AD67.1; AD67.4-AD67.5

Prior movements

86.245 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Brian McCay told us that he and Noel McLaughlin went on the march with John Young and became separated from him in Lecky Road.

1 AM100.1

86.246 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Jerry Mallett told us that he went on the march with John Hegarty and that they were walking behind John Young and Barry Chambers.

1 AM21.1

86.247 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Eugene Roddy told us that he went on the march with John Young and became separated from him at the eastern end of William Street. Eugene Roddy said that John Young did not throw any stones while they were together.

1 AR17.1-AR17.2

86.248 In his written statement to this Inquiry1 and in his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Joseph McKinney said that he called for John Young at his house at about 2.00pm and went on the march with him and Eugene Roddy. Joseph McKinney was with John Young at the junction of William Street and Rossville Street as the crowd was directed towards Free Derry Corner. This was his last recollection of seeing John Young. Joseph McKinney went on to Barrier 14 but did not see John Young there.

1 AM304.1-AM304.2

2 Day 76/108-109

86.249 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Noel Doherty told us that he saw John Young near Barrier 14, pleading with people in the crowd to move back and go to Free Derry Corner. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Noel Doherty said that he did not see John Young throw any stones.

1 AD91.2

2 Day 82/3-4

86.250 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Matthew Connolly told us that he had been on the march with John McKeever, from the Creggan to William Street. He thought that John McKeever had met John Young on the march and that the three of them stood talking at the point marked “A” on the plan attached to his statement2 (in William Street a short distance west of the junction with Rossville Street) while Matthew Connolly, who was a steward, directed the marchers down Rossville Street. About two minutes after Matthew Connolly had heard baton rounds that he thought were being fired from the eastern end of William Street, he and John McKeever moved down Rossville Street. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,3 Matthew Connolly said that he could not say where John Young had gone at this stage. However, an annotation in Philip Jacobson’s handwriting on the note of his and Peter Pringle’s interview of Matthew Connolly on 14th March 19724 suggests that Matthew Connolly told the interviewers that he did not see John Young on Bloody Sunday until a later stage of events, when Matthew Connolly was at the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North.

1 AC76.1-AC76.2

2 AC76.24

3 Day 151/5

4 AC76.14

86.251 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Seamus O’Donnell said that he arrived at Barrier 14 and threw a few stones. At some point, he and John Young were behind a corrugated tin sheet used as a defence against baton rounds. After a while, Seamus O’Donnell moved away because he could not see the soldiers or throw stones from behind the tin shield. Seamus O’Donnell described himself as a very experienced rioter. He did not say whether he had seen John Young throw stones.

1 AO80.1

86.252 A photograph taken by Frederick Hoare of the Belfast Telegraph, a photograph taken by Constable A Brown of the RUC, a photograph taken by Kenneth Mason of the Daily Telegraph, and two photographs taken by Fulvio Grimaldi, all of which are reproduced below, and also a section of the ITN film footage,1 show John Young in front of Barrier 14 while rioting was in progress. The representatives of the family of John Young have accepted that in the third of these photographs he appears to be throwing a stone at soldiers behind the barrier and that in the fourth he appears to have a stone in his right hand.2 In our view John Young was taking part in the rioting at Barrier 14.

1 Vid 3 02.55

2 FS1.1513

86.253 In her written statement to this Inquiry,1 Phyllis McLaren (then Phyllis Browne) told us that her friend Agnes McGuinness introduced her to John Young as they stood in Rossville Street near the north end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. It appears from the context that the conversation took place shortly before the paratroopers entered the Bogside. In her oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Agnes McGuinness agreed that this conversation might have happened, although she did not recall it.

1 AM313.2

2 Day 97/18

86.254 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Jerry Mallett told us that he followed the march as it turned down Rossville Street. He went to the point marked “A” on the plan attached to his statement2 (near the gap between the two blocks of Joseph Place). John Young was with him in that location when the speeches were beginning at Free Derry Corner. Jerry Mallett gave the impression, but did not say in terms, that John Young had been near him all the time until then; but the photographs of John Young in front of Barrier 14 during the riot show that this cannot be so (unless Jerry Mallett, contrary to his evidence, had also gone to Barrier 14). According to Jerry Mallett, while he and John Young were at point A, he pulled off John Young’s hat and ran with it towards Free Derry Corner. John Young chased him and retrieved the hat, and they both returned to somewhere around point A. Very soon after this, shooting began. Jerry Mallett ran towards Free Derry Corner. He became separated from John Young and did not see in which direction John Young ran.

1 AM21.1-AM21.2

2 AM21.4

86.255 We have already referred1 to Michael McCusker’s evidence when considering the shooting of Hugh Gilmour. He told us that John Young had approached the rubble barricade from the direction of Free Derry Corner.2

1 Paragraphs 86.126–129 and 86.150–151 2Day 148/54

86.256 Our assessment of this evidence is that between the time when John Young was near Barrier 14 and the time when he was shot at the rubble barricade, he had gone to a location somewhere in the area of Joseph Place; and that the conversation with Phyllis Browne and Agnes McGuinness took place when John Young was on his way from Barrier 14 to that area.

Medical and scientific evidence

Wound pathology and ballistics

86.257 Dr John Press, then the Assistant State Pathologist for Northern Ireland, conducted an autopsy of the body of John Young on 31st January 1972 at Altnagelvin Hospital.1 Three other doctors and two RUC photographers were also present.2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan, the experts on pathology and ballistics engaged by this Inquiry, considered the notes, report and photographs from this autopsy. Dr Press, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan all gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. Dr Press also appeared before the Widgery Inquiry.

1 WT8.56; D509

2 D149

86.258 In his autopsy report,1 Dr Press described the following two gunshot wounds:

(i) An oval entrance wound, measuring 8mm x 5mm, on the left cheek just to the left of the nose, centred 1cm below the inner corner of the left eye and 64in above the soles of the feet. The long axis of the wound was directed downwards and slightly to the left. The wound was bordered by a zone of abrasion, 2–4mm broad. A laceration, 4mm long, extended downwards and to the left from the lower margin of the wound. A probe inserted into the wound extended downwards at an angle of about 45° to the horizontal plane and backwards at an angle of about 40°, with a deviation of about 10–15° to the right.

(ii) A roughly rectangular exit wound, measuring 2cm x 1cm, on the left side of the back, centred 53cm (it appears possible that this was an error for 35cm) above the level of the iliac crests and about 4.5cm to the left of the midline and 52in above the soles of the feet. The long axis of the wound was directed downwards and to the left. The upper margin was undermined while the lower margin shelved outwards. The margins were somewhat ragged.

1 D149

86.259 The internal injuries found by Dr Press are described in his report1and summarised in his conclusions about the fatal injury, which are as follows:2

Death was due to a gunshot wound of the head and neck. A bullet had entered the left cheek just below the inner corner of the left eye and had caused fractures of the base of the skull associated with some bruising of the brain. It had then passed downwards and backwards through the spine in the neck severing the spinal cord before leaving the body through the back of the chest a little to the left of the midline. The injury to the spinal cord would have caused his rapid death.

The injuries were of a type caused by a bullet of high velocity. There was nothing to indicate that the weapon had been fired at close range.

The track of the bullet through the body was downwards and backwards at an angle of about 45° to the horizontal plane and a slight deviation to the right.

If he were erect at the time he was shot then the bullet must have come from above and slightly in front of him.

1 D151-D152

2 D154

86.260 Dr Press also described a number of minor external injuries.1 His findings about these injuries were as follows:2

Abrasions on the face, the tip of the tongue and the back of each hand were probably caused when he collapsed. They were of trivial nature and played no part in the death.

1 D150-D151

2 D154

86.261 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Dr Press agreed that the similarity between the tracks of the bullets in this case and that of Michael McDaid would, combined with evidence that the two men were close to each other when they were shot, suggest that they were very likely to have been shot from the same position.

1 WT8.57-WT8.59

86.262 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Dr Press confirmed the conclusions set out in his autopsy report.

1 D512

86.263 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Press said that there was a margin of error of at least 5° either way in the estimation of the angle at which the bullet passed through the body.

1 Day 205/193-194

86.264 In their report,1 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan reached conclusions which they summarised as follows:

A single bullet struck John YOUNG in the left cheek and the bullet traversed the neck and exited through the back.

Assuming the Normal Anatomical Position the track has passed downwards and backwards with only slight deviation to the left.

The path of the bullet past the base of the skull and through the vertebrae of the neck and upper chest suggests strongly that John YOUNG’s head was tipped backwards when he was shot.

The other injuries are minor and due to blunt trauma. The injuries to the face are consistent with a collapse, the injuries to the hands may have been caused in the same way but other forms of minor blunt trauma cannot be excluded.

1 E2.29-E2.30

86.265 The reference to a slight deviation to the left contrasts with Dr Press’s description of a slight deviation to the right. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Dr Shepherd said that if there was any deviation in either direction it was only minimal.

1 Day 229/9-10

86.266 The photographs of John Young’s body taken in the mortuary show the wounds and minor external injuries described by Dr Press. We have examined these photographs but do not reproduce them here. A diagram appended to the report of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan1illustrates the position of these wounds and injuries, with the exception of what Dr Press described in his autopsy report as an abrasion on the tip of the tongue.

1 E2.73

86.267 In their report,1 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan said the photographs showed that what Dr Press had described as an abrasion was not in fact an injury, but post-mortem drying of part of the tongue that had protruded from between the lips. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Dr Press said that he found it difficult to comment on this view, but that his impression at the time had been that there was an abrasion on the tongue due to contact with the ground. He thought that photographs could sometimes be a little deceptive. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,3 Dr Shepherd said that he had no doubt at all that the photographs showed post-mortem drying of the tongue. He pointed out that if the tongue had been injured by contact with the ground there would also have been injury to the lips and probably to the nose. We accept Dr Shepherd’s view on this matter.

1 E2.29

2 Day 205/166-168

3 Day 229/7-8

86.268 In relation to John Young, as in relation to Michael McDaid and William Nash, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan reached the conclusion that it was impossible from consideration of the pathology of the wounds and of measurements of the locality taken by the Northern Ireland Ordnance Survey to say either that it was more or that it was less likely that the fatal shot was fired from the City Walls than that it was fired from Rossville Street.1

1 E2.65

86.269 Herbert Donnelly, then an Assistant Scientific Officer in the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science in Belfast, examined the clothing of John Young under the direction of Dr John Martin, then a Principal Scientific Officer in the same department.1 In his report dated 21st February 1972,2 Dr Martin set out this finding:

A 1" long hole in the back of the jacket with corresponding undergarment damage is consistent with bullet exit.

1 D143-D144; D741.60; Day 225/64

2 D140

86.270 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan also examined the clothing of John Young, which had been retained by his family. Photographs were taken of the clothing.1 In their report,2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan stated:

It can be seen from our photographs of John Young’s jacket and shirt that the bullet exited through the back of the clothing at a point to the left of the mid-line. The bullet exited essentially side-on causing the elongated damage visible in the photographs.

The more extensive damage to the shirt is due either to the forces of the bullet being dissipated in the light cloth, causing it to tear or, to the shirt being slightly crumpled as the bullet passed through it.

Both the shirt and the jacket were extensively bloodstained, as can be seen in the photographs.

No further bullet damage was found on the clothing.

1 F2.8-11; F2.13-21

2 E2.29

Tests for firearm discharge and explosives residue

86.271 Dr Martin tested the jacket that John Young was wearing when he was shot, and swabs taken from his hands, for the presence of lead particles. Dr Martin detected what he considered to be a higher than normal density of lead particles on the jacket. He also detected lead particles on the swabs from the web, back and palm of the left hand, but none on the swabs from the right hand. He stated in his report the conclusion that the nature and distribution of lead particles on the swabs and jacket was similar to that produced by discharge gases from firearms.1Dr Martin also detected lead particles on John Young’s trousers,2at levels within the same range as those found on the jacket, but he did not comment on these in his report as he only examined the trousers at a later stage.

1 D140

2 D141; D605-D606; WT9.36

86.272 As we have noted above,1 the representatives of the family of John Young have accepted2 that in a photograph taken by Kenneth Mason he appears to be throwing a stone at soldiers behind Barrier 14 and that in a photograph taken by Fulvio Grimaldi he appears to have a stone in his hand. In each case, the stone is held in the right hand, suggesting that John Young was right-handed.

1 Paragraph 86.252

2 FS1.1513

86.273 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Dr Martin said that the results of his tests for lead particles were consistent with John Young having been handling or firing a weapon. Dr Martin said2that the density of lead particles found on John Young’s clothing could have resulted from the discharge of weapons up to 30 feet away or from fragmentation of bullets around him, but that this would not explain the high density of particles detected on his left hand. However, Dr Martin accepted that it was possible that these particles could have been transferred to John Young’s left hand if one or more paratroopers whose own hands were contaminated with lead particles had held it.

1 WT9.12-13

2 WT9.30; WT9.35-WT9.36

86.274 Dr John Lloyd, the independent scientific expert engaged by this Inquiry, summarised in his report1his overall conclusions about the tests for lead particles conducted by Dr Martin. He considered that, in view of the lack of control testing and the likelihood of spurious contamination, Dr Martin’s results were of no evidential value.

1 E1.51-E1.52

86.275 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Martin accepted that unless there was evidence from other sources to indicate an association between any of the deceased and a weapon, it would be unwise to interpret his findings as other than contamination .

1 Day 226/2

86.276 In relation to John Young, Dr Lloyd repeated in his report1the observation that he had made in the case of Michael McDaid,2that the APC in which the body was transported to Altnagelvin Hospital was likely to have been heavily and continuously contaminated with firearms residue. He said that the results obtained by Dr Martin were explicable solely on this basis . In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,3Dr Lloyd confirmed that he meant that this could by itself explain the contamination, rather than that it was the only possible explanation.

1 E1.50

2 E1.45

3 Day 227/45-46

86.277 Dr Martin said in his oral evidence to this Inquiry1that he agreed with Dr Lloyd’s views on this matter.

1 Day 226/97-98

86.278 In the laboratory notes1Dr Martin had recorded that he had detected four lead particles on the left hand of John Young, some smears on the web of that hand, and 15 particles on the jacket and 34 on the trousers. In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,2Dr Martin said that a person operating the bolt of a rifle might acquire a smear of lead on the palm of his hand, but Dr Martin did not attach the same significance to lead smears elsewhere on the hand.

1 D141-D143

2 WT9.36

86.279 Dr Lloyd said in his report1that it was the general, but not the invariable, rule that the deposition of firearms discharge residue became weaker as the distance from the point of origin increased. He said in his report2and confirmed in his oral evidence to this Inquiry3that the distribution of particles in John Young’s case was not consistent with him having used a firearm or having been beside someone using a firearm.

1 E1.32-E1.34

2 E1.49

3 Day 227/49-50

86.280 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Martin effectively accepted those views. He conceded that he did not now understand why he had told the Widgery Inquiry that the density of particles on the left hand was too high to be explained as the result of the discharge of weapons up to 30 feet away or of bullet fragmentation.

1 Day 226/82-86; Day 226/99-100

86.281 Alan Hall, then a Senior Scientific Officer in the same department as Dr Martin, examined the outer clothing of John Young for explosives residue. None was detected.1

1 D136

86.282 In these circumstances we consider that there is no valid scientific evidence that John Young had been handling firearms or had been close to someone who was handling a firearm, or that he had been in contact with explosives.

John Young’s clothing

86.283 John Young was wearing a dark blue zip-up jacket, a mid-brown round-necked sweater and olive green trousers.1

1 D134; D144

Where John Young was when he was shot

86.284 For the reasons we have given when discussing the shooting of Michael McDaid,1we are satisfied that John Young was shot just behind the western side of the rubble barricade, close to Michael McDaid and William Nash.

1 Paragraphs 86.188–190

When John Young was shot

86.285 For reasons given below,1we are sure that John Young was shot at about the same time as Michael McDaid and William Nash. It follows in our view, for the reasons we have given when discussing the shooting of Michael McDaid,2that he was shot after Michael Kelly and Hugh Gilmour.

1 Paragraphs 86.287–364 2Paragraph 86.191

Where John Young was taken after he was shot

86.286 John Young lay at the rubble barricade until he was picked up by soldiers and put into an APC, together with Michael McDaid and William Nash. These three casualties were then taken in the APC to Altnagelvin Hospital. We deal in detail below1with the circumstances in which the bodies were collected and with the manner in which they were handled.

1 Chapter 122

What Michael McDaid, William Nash and John Young were doing when they were shot

86.287 In the case of John Young, as in the cases of Michael McDaid and William Nash, much of the evidence of what he was doing when he was shot is confused and inconsistent. This does not surprise us, since the witnesses were seeking to recall horrific and fast-moving events and, as we have previously observed,1people who have witnessed the same event very often give sharply differing accounts of it.

1 Paragraphs 63.2 and 86.86

Ronnie Ballard

86.288 In his evidence to this Inquiry,1 Ronnie Ballard said that he was watching from a position in Rossville Street on the south-eastern side of Glenfada Park South and saw a youth running towards the rubble barricade from the waste ground north of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats with about four other young men. The youth was shot as he made to hurdle the barricade. An older man then went towards the body, but was shot while still on the southern side of the barricade. Ronnie Ballard believed that these two were William Nash and his father but only found this out from watching television after the event.

1 AB6.3-4; Day 134/10-20

86.289 We concluded that it would be unwise to rely on this account, having formed the view that this witness was, understandably, having difficulties in recollecting what he saw.

James Begley

86.290 In his interview with Kathleen Keville, James Begley gave the following account.1We should note that having listened to the audio tape2and also considered the transcription made in 1972,3we have filled in some of the passages omitted and corrected some mistakes in the transcript made for the purposes of this Inquiry.4

To start off I was halfway up Waterloo Street and I heard a roar and the Paras came up. And there was a wild scatter over Chamberlain Street. I run down Chamberlain Street and run along as far as the bookies. The soldiers came round the corner and we charged back at one of them, they caught hold of an old man, we run back after them but they came back and they opened fire. I never seen them there before, they just went down over Chamberlain Street and into the back of flats. There was a boy lying there I went down on my knees to look at him and everybody else went past and he was coughing up blood and I knew I’d seen he was a goner, anyway when I looked at him, you know, he was a goner. I went down and went over and outside of the flats across Rossville Street and I run down and seen more soldiers and I run down there with a couple of other boys and they started shooting at us so I went back over the barricade and hid in behind it when there was right up there a young man who was Will Nash known as Stiff he was lying there. Well I lay down and they were still firing at us then the firing stopped and a – another boy came up his name is Pat Young he come over to me and says are you all right and I says aye and I was getting up and started firing again and I told him to get down and I looked up and I seen he got right between the eyes just on there and er – he fell over the top of me and they kept on firing and then another boy came up it was Mr Nash I knew him by looking at him I looked up and seen him and told him to get down but I was too late he got it too. And some other fella then came out to give us a hand over and er – I don’t know what you call him but he got it as well and there was three or four all lying there at the barricade and me and another boy just creeped in from the corner and hid in behind the flats. They then stopped shooting and went back over the road. That’s it.

1 AB29.3

2 Aud 34 01.16.05

3 AB29.1

4 AB29.3

86.291 James Begley is dead and gave no evidence to this Inquiry. From his Keville interview, since James Begley did not say that William Nash was shot when lying next to him, it appears to us that William Nash must have been shot by the time James Begley arrived at his side. His reference to Pat Young must be a reference to John Young and the later reference to Mr Nash must be a reference to Alexander Nash, William Nash’s father, who, as we explain in more detail below,1 came out to the rubble barricade after his son had been shot. However, we are confident that no-one was shot at the rubble barricade after Alexander Nash, which casts doubt on James Begley’s recollection of the sequence of events.

1 Paragraphs 86.482–558

James Breslin

86.292 In his evidence to this Inquiry,1 James Breslin said that he was watching from the front garden of the northernmost house in Joseph Place and saw a youth shot as he pulled himself along the western section of the rubble barricade towards Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, clinging on to the side of the barricade, defying gravity. He was pulling himself along with his hands and not using his legs. He was later told that this youth was William Nash, although he might also have realised this at the time. We find difficulty with this account in view of the medical and scientific evidence, which in our view is inconsistent with this description of what William Nash was doing.

1 AB78.1-2; Day 146/82-90

James Chapman

86.293 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 James Chapman said that he was watching from the window of his maisonette, approximately in the middle of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North. He described seeing three men fall as they scrambled over the rubble barricade. They fell on the right-hand side (ie the western section) of the barricade. The first to fall was the nearest to the gap in the barricade, the second fell almost underneath James Chapman’s window on the (western) edge of the barricade, and the third fell between the other two.

1 WT4.65-66; WT4.70

86.294 James Chapman is now dead and gave no evidence to this Inquiry.

Matthew Connolly

86.295 Matthew Connolly gave the following account in his NICRA statement:1

I was standing rubble at Ros[s]ville Street when a young fellow of 16 or 17 was shot and fell in front of me. He was shot fairly high up in his chest. The soldier who fired the shot was crouched behind the door of a saracen. At this time the fellow was not dead. As we went to forward to help him, automatic fire riddled the rubble. Everyone lay flat out on the ground, about four stayed on for about a minute and during this time the soldiers were still shooting and we could hear the bullets above our heads. The fellow was screaming. We retreated behind a wall. About a minute later John Young crawled with his head down towards the boy who had been hit. He got to within a yard of him when a single shot hit him, he was dead. A youth tried to move towards the two

bodies but only got out into the open and was shot. He stumbled back towards the wall and taken on to a house.”

1 AC76.13

86.296 Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobson of the Sunday Times Insight Team interviewed Matthew Connolly. Their interview notes (dated 14th March 1972) recorded that Matthew Connolly had told them that he had moved from the Rossville Flats car park to the telephone box on the other side of the gap between Blocks 1 and 2:1

i then moved across to the barricade and until this time, as far as i could tell, ther[e] had not been any high velocity fire – only rubber bullets. i was standing on the glenfada park side of the barricade on the pavement when i heard a single rifle shot a young fellow of about 16 or 17 fell in front of me. he had been shot in the chest on the left side. i learnt after that it was willie nash. i could see the bullet hole in his light coloured shirt. the shot appeared to come from the soldiers who were about 40 y[a]rds away up rossville st on the same side crouched behind the door of a pig. nash squealed. he was not dead. he was moaning.

then the shooting really started and i could hear the bullets hitting the barricade. everyone lay flat on the ground and about four of us stayed on for about a minute and we then crawled along the gable end of a block of flats in glenfada park (x1).2 we were there for about a minute. It was then I saw John Young for the first time that day.

then i saw someone crawling out to the barricade. he had his back to me and i didn’t know. he was crawling to willie nash. a single shot ran out and he slumped. i thought he was hit somewhere in his head. he was wearing some kind of combat hat and jeans. when he was hit I saw it was john young. he didn’t move. another boy – i dont know his name – stepped out from the gable end and was shot in the left shoulder. he fell back and a group of about four people took him away through the alley into abbey park. we stayed by the gable for a few minutes longer and then some of us ran off into abbey park.

1 AC76.14-15

2 Point x1 was shown on the plan that accompanied the notes of this interview (AC76.17) as the south-eastern corner of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North.

86.297 In his deposition for the coroner’s inquest into the death of John Young, Matthew Connolly described how he had reached the rubble barricade. He then gave the following account, which we have set out here in its original typed form:1

1 AC76.25-26

86.298 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Matthew Connolly said that he did not remember three sentences in this deposition being deleted and could not explain why this had been done, but he said that the contents of the deleted sentences were true.1The reason appears to be found in a note by Robert Carswell QC, counsel for the Ministry of Home Affairs at the inquests, dated 22nd August 1973, in which he wrote: … it was agreed in discussion between the legal representatives before the inquest opened that no evidence from the forensic science reports would be given and there would be no debate on the question whether any deceased person had been handling or close to a firearm or bomb. References to the absence of firearms were deleted from the draft depositions. I saw the Coroner before the inquests opened, explained that these steps were acceptable to all parties and obtained his approval for the omission of surplus evidence. 2

1 Day 151/58-59 2GEN2.2

86.299 Matthew Connolly gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.

86.300 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Matthew Connolly told us that he was standing at the rubble barricade with other people for perhaps two or three minutes. He saw people throwing stones in the general direction of the soldiers, though there was nothing close enough to throw stones at . He then told us:2

17. As I stood there, a small boy in front of me jumped and screamed as if he had been shot. My first impression was that he was play-acting. I had not heard a specific shot. He fell backwards, perhaps two or three feet in front of me, very slightly to my right. He, too, was behind (on the south side) of the Rubble Barricade approximately at the point marked 1 on the attached map (grid reference J15). He did not say anything, he just screamed. I did not know who he was but was subsequently told that he could have been either William Nash or Michael McDaid.

18. I went forward to the boy. I thought he was fifteen or sixteen years old. He had a shirt but no jacket. I think the shirt may have been light blue in colour. I cannot recall what else he was wearing. I think that his hair was dark and of average length. He had been shot high up in the front left-hand side of his chest. I could not see much blood and I think it took me a couple of minutes to realise there was any. I wanted to do something but did not know what to do. I think there were two or three of us around him at that time. Somebody was holding him and he was still screaming. I think that we stayed by him for about two minutes. I did not hear any shots at all during the time that we were beside him.

1 AC76.2-3

2 AC76.3

86.301 The point marked 1 on Matthew Connolly’s map was slightly to the west of the centre of the rubble barricade.1

1 AC76.24

86.302 After giving a description of the soldiers he recalled seeing north of the rubble barricade, Matthew Connolly continued:1

22. There was then a volley of automatic shots. I got the impression that these shots were very close to us. The impact sounded as if it was hitting stones, perhaps the stones in the Rubble Barricade. I think that there were more than ten or fifteen shots.

23. Immediately, I got down flat on the ground. Nobody had been throwing stones immediately before these shots. The soldiers near the Saracen were too far away to throw stones at. Although there had been ten or fifteen of us behind the Rubble Barricade before these shots, it is my recollection that there were only four or five of us lying down behind the barricade after these shots. The others must have moved away, perhaps south down Rossville Street, although I do not know.

24. We then also ran, keeping down, to the gable end wall of the row of houses on the east side of Glenfada Park North. There were other people there when we got there. I cannot remember how many. People were milling about but I think there were about twenty or thirty people there at that time. I think I was approximately at the point marked F on the attached plan (grid reference I 15). There were also people in the car park of Glenfada Park North and people further south from me, nearer to the north-eastern entrance to Glenfada Park South. I refer to the copy photograph at Appendix 3. This is taken at the place where I and the other people were sheltering by the gable wall although I do not know when during Bloody Sunday that this picture was taken. I refer also to the copy photograph at Appendix 4 which shows Glenfada Park North. I do not recognise anybody in this photograph.

25. I do not know whether the boy at the point marked 1 at the Rubble Barricade was still screaming; I could not hear him. John Young was also behind the gable wall when I got there.

26. I moved slightly to the south of the people by the gable wall so that I could see up Rossville Street. As I looked out into Rossville Street, the gable end wall of Glenfada Park North blocked my view of the injured boy at point 1. I think I was about ten or twelve feet south from the end gable wall but I am not very sure how far east or west along the gable wall I was. I heard someone in the crowd shout come back in . I saw

somebody on his hunkers move out from the gable end of the wall where we were sheltering towards the Rubble Barricade. I thought that the person who had shouted come back in had shouted at this man. There was also another man behind him and slightly to his left as I was looking at them and I will describe him later. The first man who I had seen then fell over. He was between the gable wall and the Rubble Barricade, to the south of the Rubble Barricade, approximately at the point marked 2 on the attached map (grid reference J15). He fell to his right. He had been crouched down with his left side towards the Rubble Barricade and he fell to the south away from the barricade onto his right side, facing east. I then saw him plainly and I saw that he was John Young. He had been shot in the head. The wound was in the left- hand side of the head. He lay on his side with his feet towards the Rubble Barricade, still in a crouched position. He did not move. Although I heard shots at the time, there was no specific shot which I could say hit him. At no time had I seen John Young throw stones.

27. Immediately after this, the second man who had been behind John Young and to his left, that is, nearer to the Glenfada Park North side of Rossville Street, seemed to stumble. He was approximately at the point marked 3 on the attached map (grid reference J14/15). I think, therefore, that he was further out in the road than the first boy (at the point marked 1) I had seen shot. I would say that this man was about eighteen or nineteen years old. I think that he wore something dark, maybe jeans, although I am not sure. He was not tall and I cannot recall what his hair was like. After I saw him stumble someone then blocked my view and I never saw him again. I do not know what happened to him but assumed he had been shot. I did not know who he was, but afterwards have discovered that he may be either William Nash or Michael McDaid, because I learned that they, too, were shot there.

28. I could not say whether or not John Young and the other man had gone out towards the Rubble Barricade to help the first boy we had seen shot, or not. After this, the people sheltering by the gable wall were standing in shock. Although I heard shots at the time they fell I could not see any soldiers from where I was standing. It did seem to me as though the shots were coming south down Rossville Street from where I had seen the soldiers by Kells Walk. I could not tell the difference between a high or low velocity shot but I could tell the difference between the sound of rubber bullets and live bullets. These shots were live shots.

29. I did not see anyone cross the Rubble Barricade towards the soldiers after the first shot. Nor did I hear anyone say They’re only firing blanks . Nobody was shooting from the Rubble Barricade at the army. I was not aware of any civilians at the barricade with guns. If I had seen a civilian gunman, I would have remembered.

30. There had been sporadic shooting ever since the first boy had been shot. Occasionally there would be clusters of heavier shooting too. John Young fell during the sporadic shooting as did the man who was behind him when he was shot.

31. I cannot recall how long I stayed with the people behind the gable wall at Glenfada Park North but I think I was there for about fifteen or twenty minutes in total. I was in shock. I did not see what happened to the bodies at the Rubble Barricade.

1 AC76.3-5

86.303 The position marked F by this witness was just south of the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, ie what Matthew Connolly described as the gable wall.1 The two photographs to which this witness referred were respectively one taken by an unknown photographer of people at the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, which we discuss later in this report,2 and the photograph taken by the Irish Times photographer Ciaran Donnelly of people carrying Michael Kelly across Glenfada Park North.

1 AC76.24

2 Chapter 176

86.304 The part of the map on which this witness marked 2 and 3 is reproduced below.1

1 AC76.24

86.305 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Matthew Connolly, having been shown one of the photographs taken by Robert White of Michael Kelly lying on the ground behind the rubble barricade, said that it was possible that the first person he saw shot was Michael Kelly.1 He also said that when he heard the volley of shots after seeing this person shot there were maybe half a dozen people at the rubble barricade, most either lying down or crouching down, and that there was no stone-throwing at this time.2

1 Day 151/13; Day151/39

2 Day 151/18-19

86.306 Matthew Connolly marked on a photograph the position so far as he could remember it of the three bodies at the rubble barricade. The blue arrow shows the position of the first person he said that he saw fall, the red arrow the position of John Young, and the green arrow the position of the person he said had followed John Young out from the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North.1

1 Day 151/22-25; AC76.28

86.307 Matthew Connolly also told us that it was possible that in the accounts he had given in 1972 he had become muddled between Michael Kelly and Michael McDaid, when describing a boy being hit in the left shoulder after John Young had been shot, and being taken away to Glenfada Park North.1 He told us that of those he saw shot dead the only one he knew was John Young.2

1 Day 151/26-28

2 Day 151/38-39

86.308 Later in the course of Matthew Connolly’s evidence he gave the following answers to questions put by counsel for the majority of the families:1

Q. We know that Michael Kelly’s body was taken away by a group of persons around him. When his body was taken away, were you actually on the ground taking shelter and not looking to see what was happening further at that time?

A. Yes, that is probably correct, if I was still at the barricade, yes.

Q. But still at the barricade. Because we know that William Nash was also shot at this barricade and that William Nash was also, like Mr Kelly, shot in the chest; he was shot just to the right of the midline and above his right nipple.

Could it be, Mr Connolly, that what you have seen is Mr Kelly being shot first; you then take shelter; Mr Kelly’s body has been removed by a number of persons, but in the meantime Mr Nash has been shot and Mr Young, who was in the same class as William Nash, has gone out to crawl to his body and that you have taken it, because you have not seen him shot, that that was actually Michael Kelly?

A. It is possible, yes.2

Q. When you saw John Young – if you could perhaps look at the map that you originally compiled, that is the map at AC76.24. If we look at the positions you have marked as to three bodies that you saw on the barricade, they in fact appear to be marked on the road side of the barricade, not on the pavement. Number one appears to be just at the right-hand margin on the barricade and to the right of the left-hand footpath; do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Just immediately to the right of the figure 1 is the figure 2, and south of both those bodies and in a midpoint between them is the third. Those are in different positions from what you marked today on the photograph. The photograph you marked today has been preserved as AC76.28. The position is that you were asked to mark firstly where you saw the first body, and you marked that with the blue arrow; that is Michael Kelly?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. You were then subsequently asked to mark where John Young was; you marked the red arrow. Finally the other person whom you saw, and you have marked that with the green arrow.

Were you taking the reference point for the green and red arrow as being the body of Michael Kelly; namely, you assumed that both of those persons were making towards the first body that you saw?

A. Yes, that is correct to say that.

Q. In other words, the markings for John Young and the second person are predicated upon your understanding that it was Michael Kelly’s body they were crawling out to?

A. Yes, that would be fair to say.

Q. Whereas in fact if you look at your original map, or the map that was prepared for the Eversheds statement, it would appear that the bodies were further out to the eastern side of the barricade, that is the Rossville Flats side?

A. Well, that one is wrong, they were definitely nearer the Glenfada Park side.

Q. When you made your statement to NICRA, it would be correct to say that the only person you really named in that was John Young. Then when you were dealing with the Sunday Times, and I wonder if that could be put up, AC76.14, and if the final third of that could be highlighted. The words just before this begins:

i was standing on the glenfada park side of the barricade on the pavement when i heard a single rifle shot a young fellow of about 16 or 17 fell in front of me. he had been shot in the chest on the left side. i learnt after that it was willie nash.

Can you recall who told you it was Willie Nash, or was that just the general topic of conversation that you became appraised of?

A. It was just a general topic of conversation. I cannot actually remember who gave the names of the people. Sometimes when they were interviewing me, they would say that was such-and-such and that was such-and-such because of where I said that I thought the bodies were lying. So they actually put a name to them. But I myself could not put a name to them because I did not know any of them at the time.

Q. It goes on:

i could see the bullet hole in his light coloured shirt.

Willie Nash appears to have been wearing a white coloured shirt:

the shot appeared to come from the soldiers who were about 40 y[a]rds away up rossville st on the same side crouched behind the door of a pig. nash squealed. he was not dead. he was moaning.

then the shooting really started

Do you recall that now after –

A. Well, I recall beginning – I only actually heard the one shot and then shortly after, when I say the shooting really started, there was continuous firing for a while.

Q. Also in this statement it continues on:

everyone lay flat on the ground

If one goes over to AC76.15, that it was some time after you saw the first person fall that John Young moved out from the gable; is that right?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Would that have been a matter of minutes, or can you not recall?

A. Well, I could not really put a time on it, but, yeah, minutes, maybe – I think it must have been about 5 or 10, but I could not swear to that.

Q. When he was crawling out, did he crawl out on his hands and knees or on his stomach, can you recollect?

A. No, what I can recollect is by the time I actually saw him he was well clear of the crowd and he was crouched down, but not – when I say crawling, not on his hands and knees, no.

Q. When you saw him he was well clear of the gable, he was actually out towards the barricade?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. At this stage he was not crawling, his body was not on the ground, he was not on his hands and knees, I think you used the word crouching; is that correct?

A. Yes, that is correct, he was not on his hands and knees, no.

Q. Can you say how far he was away from the body or could you not – you simply could not see the body at that stage; is that right?3

A. No, I could not see the body, I could not actually say.

Q. Would it also be correct to say, Mr Connolly, that you were very unfamiliar with this area at this time?

A. Yes, that is the first time I had ever been in it.

1 Day 151/39-45

2 We note here that Matthew Connolly was prepared to agree that it was possible that the first man he saw shot was Michael Kelly, after being told that Michael Kelly had been shot in the chest. Matthew Connolly has consistently said that the first casualty he saw was shot high up in the front left chest. Michael Kelly was not shot high up in his chest. William Nash was shot high up in the front of his chest, albeit slightly to the right of the midline.

3 The tape recording of the evidence reveals that the transcript inaccurately recorded the question as including a quotation.

86.309 Matthew Connolly also told us that the person he recalled seeing with a shoulder injury could have been Patrick O’Donnell.1 As we describe when considering the events of Sector 4,2 Patrick O’Donnell was hit in the shoulder by a shot fired in Glenfada Park North, and then went to the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, where he was eventually arrested by soldiers. However, Patrick O’Donnell was injured after soldiers had come into Glenfada Park North, ie after the shooting of William Nash, John Young and Michael McDaid; and after Matthew Connolly had fled into Abbey Park.

1 Day 151/50-51 2Paragraphs 104.494–521

86.310 Matthew Connolly’s various accounts are not easy to follow. However, we have concluded that the first person he saw shot was William Nash, who was hit high on the chest; and the second John Young, whom he knew. His evidence indicates that there was an appreciable interval of time between William Nash and John Young being shot, which is also supported by the account given by James Begley. In his NICRA statement Matthew Connolly described it as about a minute, though in our view it would be unwise to rely on such estimates as necessarily accurate; and it may have been a shorter period, though enough time for John Young to realise what had happened and decide to go out to William Nash.

86.311 Matthew Connolly also described John Young as crawling out, but he told us, and we accept, that by this he meant not on his hands and knees, but crouching,1 which is consistent with the medical and scientific evidence relating to John Young.

1 Day 151/44

86.312 Despite Matthew Connolly accepting that it was possible that he had seen Michael Kelly shot, we consider that it is unlikely that he did so. We have noted above1 that Matthew Connolly has consistently maintained that the first casualty was hit high on the chest, a description that fits William Nash’s injury, but not that of Michael Kelly. Matthew Connolly may either have been nearer the rubble barricade than Michael Kelly and did not realise that the latter had been shot behind him, or had not reached the rubble barricade until after this had happened.

1 Paragraph 86.308

86.313 This leaves Michael McDaid, who was undoubtedly shot at the rubble barricade. Matthew Connolly described a third casualty hit in the shoulder, who was carried into Abbey Park. This was not Michael McDaid, who remained at the barricade until put by soldiers into an APC. Michael Kelly was carried into Abbey Park, just before soldiers arrived in Glenfada Park North. The exit wound on Michael McDaid was under his left shoulder. We have concluded that it is likely that Matthew Connolly witnessed the shooting of Michael McDaid, saw the exit wound, and then mistakenly assumed that it was this casualty who was being carried across Glenfada Park North to Abbey Park. Matthew Connolly must have fled from the area of the rubble barricade in the same direction and at about the same time as Michael Kelly was being carried across, just before the soldiers came into Glenfada Park North.

Paul Coyle

86.314 In his interview with Tony Stark of Praxis Films Ltd,1 Paul Coyle said that he saw William Nash run out towards the rubble barricade in the middle of the shooting, presumably to go to someone’s assistance. William Nash fell to the ground dead after taking only a few steps. He had nothing in his hands. In his written statement to this Inquiry,2 Paul Coyle told us that he was watching from the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North and saw a youth fall at the rubble barricade, where he had been gesticulating at soldiers. He later learned that this might have been William Nash. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry3 he said that it was possible that the youth had just jumped behind the barricade for cover. He no longer had any recollection of seeing William Nash run out towards the rubble barricade.

1 O5.5-O5.7

2 AC105.2

3 Day 152/66-69

Alphonsus Cunningham

86.315 In his evidence to this Inquiry,1 Alphonsus Cunningham said that when standing near the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North he saw a youth shot just after he lifted rubble from the barricade to throw at the soldiers. An older man subsequently went to his aid and was also shot. In our view this evidence refers to the shooting of William Nash and his father.

1 AC125.2; Day 150/12; Day 150/16-18

John Devine

86.316 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 John Devine told us that while hiding behind a car in the south-eastern corner of Glenfada Park North he saw three bodies on the western side of the rubble barricade. One body was about a metre away from another, and the third was another metre and a half away. This account is consistent with Alexander Nash’s account of where the three casualties lay.2

1 AD41.1-2 2Paragraph 86.188

Joseph Doherty

86.317 Joseph Doherty’s evidence was that while looking through the letter box of a house in Joseph Place he saw a youth shot at the rubble barricade as he straightened after bending as if to pick something up, although he told us that he did not see anything in the youth’s hands. The youth had gone to the barricade from the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North. An older man then went to him and was shot himself.1 Again, in our view, this refers to the shooting of William Nash and his father.

1 AD76.7; AD76.9-10; WT8.11-12; WT8.14; AD76.3; Day 138/147-149

Letty Donnelly

86.318 In her written statement to this Inquiry,1 Letty Donnelly told us that while watching from her sister’s flat at 6 Garvan Place (on the first floor of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats) she saw a boy fall just north of the eastern section of the rubble barricade, as he ran towards the barricade.2 She then saw the crouched figure of a man just south of the eastern section of the barricade shouting: ‘That’s my son. Help me’.” She learned that these two were William Nash and his father. She also saw two other bodies on the north side of the western section of the rubble barricade, which were later thrown into an Army vehicle. In her oral evidence to this Inquiry3 she accepted that William Nash and his father could have been on the western section of the barricade but remained sure that one was to the north of the barricade and one to the south. In view of the evidence given in 1972, we have concluded that Letty Donnelly’s memory has deceived her, since we are sure that William Nash was shot when on the southern side of the rubble barricade. Furthermore, for reasons given earlier in this report,4 we are sure that William Nash (as well as Michael McDaid and John Young) was facing north and not running south when he was shot.

1 AD125.2

2 AD125.7

3 Day 124/119

4 Paragraphs 86.193–197

Hugh Duffy

86.319 Hugh Duffy said in his evidence to this Inquiry that while standing at the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North he saw two bodies at the rubble barricade, both to the west of the gap, lying very close to each other. He knew that the body further from Glenfada Park North was that of William Nash as he saw his father, Alexander Nash (who was standing in the same group as the witness), go to him. William Nash was lying with his head pointing north. The other body was lying on the barricade, was wearing dark clothes and had dark hair. This man was lying on his side with his back to Glenfada Park and with his head pointing north.1 There is no doubt that there were three bodies at the rubble barricade when Alexander Nash went out to his son. Hugh Duffy also told Kathleen Keville that he saw two bodies.2 It appears that his observation in this regard was incomplete.

1 AD156.3; Day 150/77-81

2 AD156.9

John Dunleavy

86.320 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 John Dunleavy told us that from the sitting room of his flat at 5 Garvan Place (on the second floor of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats) he saw three bodies very close to one another, approximately in the middle of the rubble barricade. His recollection was that one of the bodies was slightly on top of the other two and that this youth wore a jumper that gradually became red with blood. The recollections of this witness are to a significant degree consistent with the 1972 accounts of Alexander Nash.

1 AD170.2

William Etherson

86.321 William Etherson said in his evidence to this Inquiry1 that while crouching in Rossville Street some distance south of the rubble barricade, he saw three youths fall as they ran across the rubble barricade from west to east. They all seemed to drop at the same time, but he could not be sure that they had been hit.

1 AE4.3-4; Day 143/6-9

Seamus Fleming

86.322 In his NICRA statement,1 Seamus Fleming described being affected by CS gas and spraining his ankle when he began to run from Columbcille Court; and then reaching the entry to Glenfada Park (ie the south-eastern entrance to Glenfada Park North). His statement continued:

There were about twenty young men sheltering behind a barricade of bricks and rubble. I then noticed that some of the lads got up and ran into the entry where I was standing. As they were running, I heard gunfire.

There were still about six left at the barricade and they fell for cover. I saw soldiers everywhere and three saracens. During a lull in the shooting, the six lads at the barricade got up to run towards our entry. The minute their heads appeared, there was a burst of fire and I saw a lad with a blue half jerkin clutch his stomach with his hands and slump on top of the barricade. I saw also a lad with a brown coat slumping over, holding his left side. They did not move. A man beside me in the entry made an attempt to go forward to assist them but there was another burst of gunfire and a bullet struck the wall above us. A piece of red brick fell to the ground beside where the man was standing. At that point I ran through Lisfannon Park and into Butcher Street. I stood there for from 5 to 10 minutes. There was a lot of gunfire so I made for home.

1 AF22.11

86.323 It is our view that the lad with a blue half jerkin was probably Michael Kelly and the lad with a brown coat William Nash, since these descriptions are consistent with the clothing worn by these casualties. Seamus Fleming said to this Inquiry that he did not see youths at the rubble barricade throwing stones or anything else at this time. In his oral evidence1 he told us that he did not see anybody throwing anything from the barricade towards the soldiers.

1 Day 146/55

Brendan Gallagher

86.324 This witness made a NICRA statement,1 in which he gave the following account:

I was in Rossville Street Barricade and five Saracens drove into Rossville Street and lined up. A few young boys were going to throw stones at them when the army opened fire. I saw two of these young boys fall dead and the third fellow was shot in the stomach. At the same time another person was shot in the leg while he was standing on the barricade.

1 AG4.1

86.325 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Brendan Gallagher told us that he did not now remember seeing four boys shot at the rubble barricade although he vaguely remembered seeing bodies there. However, in his oral evidence to this Inquiry he said that he saw three people fall at the rubble barricade, two to the west of centre and one to the east (who was shot in the stomach). All three were on the southern side of the rubble barricade. He also saw a fourth person (who was shot in the leg) still further to the east. Some of these people had been throwing stones, but Brendan Gallagher could not recall which ones. He told us that as he dived for cover at a point close to the north-eastern corner of Glenfada Park South he had also seen another casualty fall close to him, and that he believed that at a slightly later stage, after he had taken refuge in a flat in the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, he saw Hugh Gilmour shot.2

1 AG4.3

2 Day 147/198-208

86.326 The person Brendan Gallagher said he had seen shot in the leg is likely in our view to have been Constantine Gallagher, who, as we describe elsewhere in this report,1 was on the rubble barricade and had been injured in the leg by a baton round. We are doubtful whether Brendan Gallagher saw Hugh Gilmour shot, as there is nothing in his NICRA statement to that effect.

1 Paragraphs 87.142–148

Veronica Glenn

86.327 Veronica Glenn said in her evidence to this Inquiry that she had been watching from her parents’ flat (at 26 Mura Place at the south end of the fourth floor of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats) and that she believed that she had seen four bodies on the rubble barricade. One of these was on the western side, two on the eastern, but she could not place the fourth body. Veronica Glenn believed that she had previously seen these people taking cover at the barricade during a burst of fire that followed the shooting of a youth who appears to have been Michael Kelly.1

1 AG68.2-8; Day 144/142-148

Helen Johnston

86.328 In a NICRA statement made jointly with her sister Margaret Johnston,1 Helen Johnston recorded that she was in a small alley with a number of other people:

From where we were standing we could see the remains of a barricade. Lying at the barricade were three men all on top of the other. Immediately beside them on his back was an elderly man. He appeared to be alive as his arms were moving. I asked some of the men, could they not pull him in. They said it was much too dangerous and the other three were dead. Then the chippings came off the wall, where the bullets were striking the wall by where we were standing.

1 AJ11.1

86.329 In her written statement to this Inquiry, Helen Johnston told us that she thought that she had seen the casualties at the rubble barricade from the area of the eastern entrance to Glenfada Park South.1 In her oral evidence to this Inquiry, she recalled that two of the three people were close to one another, while the third was a foot or two further away. She initially said that she had seen these three men throwing stones, but later withdrew that suggestion.2

1 AJ11.3; AJ11.13

2 Day 228/32-36; Day 228/61-66

86.330 From this account it appears that Helen Johnston did not see any of the casualties being shot, but only saw them lying close together after Alexander Nash (William Nash’s father) had gone out to his son.

Eamon McAteer

86.331 In his NICRA statement, Eamon McAteer recorded that from the area of the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North he saw three bodies almost lying on top of one another on the rubble barricade.1 In his evidence to this Inquiry, he again referred to three bodies in close proximity to each other and recalled that they were in a position to the west of the centre and to the south of the barricade.2

1 AM41.33

2 AM41.13; Day 135/13-15

Mary McCann

86.332 This witness was uncertain as to the precise position of the two bodies that she recalled seeing at the rubble barricade as she looked out from the window of 11 Garvan Place (on the first floor of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats), but indicated that they were close together on the eastern side of Rossville Street. She also thought that a man (who appears to have been Alexander Nash) was in between these two bodies waving his arm.1 We formed the view that this witness, though doing her best, really had no clear recollection of events.

1 AM78.1; Day 133/60-64

Kevin McCloskey

86.333 Kevin McCloskey said in his evidence to this Inquiry that he saw three men fall as he and they ran south over the rubble barricade. He indicated that they fell on the southern side of the barricade, to the west of the gap. He tried to help one of these men, but could not drag him to cover. He thought that this man was in his twenties or thirties. He saw no stone-throwing from the barricade.1

1 AM116.4-5; Day 135/237-242

86.334 We formed the view, on listening to Kevin McCloskey’s evidence, that he did not have a true recollection of events; in many respects his overall account is inconsistent with other convincing evidence. For example he described going from the rubble barricade and seeing three or four men standing at the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, one of whom was Fr Bradley. It is clear from photographic and other evidence that there were substantially more people at the south end of that block, who remained there throughout the shooting at the rubble barricade. We concluded that it would be unwise to rely on the account given by this witness.

John McCrudden

86.335 This witness said in his evidence to this Inquiry1 that he looked out from an upstairs window in 12 Garvan Place (on the third floor of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats) and saw two bodies on the western side of the rubble barricade, a little to the left of the arrow he marked on the following photograph.2 He also appears to have seen Alexander Nash nearby, which may have prevented him from seeing a third body.

1 AM152.3-4; Day 95/108-111

2 AM152.13

Nola McSwine

86.336 In her evidence to this Inquiry,1 Nola McSwine (now McCullagh) said that while looking out of the window of a flat on the third floor of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats she saw three bodies lying towards the middle of the rubble barricade. She had the impression (possibly from their posture) that they had come from the south-eastern corner of Glenfada Park North. The bodies were very close to each other. She subsequently saw a man (who appears to have been Alexander Nash) go to the bodies.

1 AM157.3-4; Day 137/10-11

Michael McCusker

86.337 We have referred earlier1 to the evidence of this witness. In his Keville interview,2 he said that he talked to John Young at the rubble barricade and that John Young told him that there was two boys shot around at … the back of the flats . According to John Goddard’s interview note,3 Michael McCusker said that John Young, who had no stone in his hands, had told him that Michael Bradley had been shot. In his written statement to this Inquiry,4 Michael McCusker said that John Young had told him that Michael Bradley had been shot and taken to a house in Joseph Place. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,5 Michael McCusker said that he left John Young standing at about the point marked with an arrow on the following photograph.6

1 Paragraphs 86.126–129 and 86.150–151

2 AM160.14

3 AM160.9

4 AM160.2

5 Day 148/55-56

6 AM160.10

Denis Patrick McLaughlin

86.338 In his Keville interview, this witness (who was 16 at the time) gave the following account:1

I was down at the William Street to see what was happening and er – they started to shoot the gas and we came running up Rossville Street.

[Female voice] To get away from the gas?

To get away from the gas. I was hit with a rubber bullet and I fell and two men dragged me up…

[Female voice] You were hit with a rubber bullet?

Aye and I fell and I was dragged up a bit … I was all right and er – … I says I’m … going down, see what’s happening down here again. And I went down and I seen a body over at the barricade and there was another fella along with me, he goes over at the body and I went over along with him and er – this other fella walked out and he was shot in the stomach and he fell, then another man came out again he was shot and he fell and a boy came out and he was shot in the head…

[Female voice] Were any of them armed?

No. None of them was armed at all.

[Female voice] they weren’t trying to – to fight the soldiers?

No. They just came out to help with this body that was lying there. They thought we were – they thought we were shot too as we were lying beside him because we didn’t want to get up, you know. And they shot him in the head and the – the blood spurted out of his head it came away in my hands, you know. And er – there was a – the oth – there was a boy then that came over and he dragged this boy by the feet, you know, to get him out of the road. He says for us to come over out of the road, you know, you don’t want to get shot. We says what about these bodies?

He says you have to come over here in case you get shot, you know. So he dragged the first boy by the feet then he grabbed my hands and he dragged me across and we run in against the wall with Father Bradley, you know. And I grabbed Father Bradley down beside me, you know, as he’s sort of like a little scared, you know. Some of the soldiers came around the corner and there was another man and he pulled off his coat and the steam was rising out of him and there was a hole in his shoulder and I knew he was shot.

1 AM326.38-39

86.339 Denis Patrick McLaughlin also made a NICRA statement,1 in which he recorded that the first casualty he saw was dressed in a brown suit and had black hair, and had been running south over the loose stones of the barricade when he fell back and rolled over onto his face. He stated that he saw this man from the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, and that George Roberts, who had been running alongside the man, went to assist him. Denis Patrick McLaughlin also crawled out to him. A second man fell nearby, who he later found out had been shot dead. A third man walked out slowly. More shots rang out and the third man fell on top of Denis Patrick McLaughlin. The witness turned and saw a fourth casualty’s head burst open with blood pouring out. Denis Patrick McLaughlin recorded in his NICRA statement that after witnessing people being shot he became hysterical.

1 AM326.19-21

86.340 Denis Patrick McLaughlin gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. In his written statement to this Inquiry1 he gave a similar account to that he had given in his NICRA statement, but said that from photographs of those who were killed on Bloody Sunday he had been able to identify the first casualty he saw, who was wearing the brown suit, as William Nash. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry2 he said that he did not see any wound suffered by this casualty. He said3 that he did not know what the second man had been doing before he fell. He thought that the man had been shot, because bullets were hitting the rubble barricade when he fell. He said4 that he presumed that the third man had walked out from the Glenfada Park side . He thought that this man had been shot because of the way he fell, but he saw no sign of injury on him. He said5 that he could not remember from where the fourth casualty had come, but he remembered the blood coming out of his head.

1 AM326.4-6

2 Day 159/102-105

3 Day 159/27-29

4 Day 159/29-30

5 Day 159/30-33

86.341 We have no doubt that Denis Patrick McLaughlin witnessed the shooting of some of the casualties at the rubble barricade. He identified himself1 as the youth standing fourth from the right in the photograph taken by Liam Mailey showing Fr Bradley walking in the direction of Rossville Street, which we have shown earlier in this report and which we reproduce below.2

1 AM326.12

2 Paragraph 86.209

86.342 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, Liam Mailey said that the youth shown fourth from the right in his photograph had become hysterical.1

1 WT7.33

86.343 We have considered the evidence of Denis Patrick McLaughlin. He was a witness to horrific events taking place close to him, and so it is not surprising that he became hysterical. However, we take the view that his evidence indicates that William Nash was shot before John Young and Michael McDaid. There is nothing in his accounts to suggest that the latter two were doing anything other than trying to go out to the bodies.

Kevin McGonagle

86.344 According to the note made by John Barry of the Sunday Times Insight Team of an interview with Kevin McGonagle,1 this witness said that from his position in a house in Joseph Place he saw one youth near the left-hand (which from there would be the western) pavement of Rossville Street crawling towards another youth who was lying at the rubble barricade. The crawling youth then ceased moving. In his evidence to this Inquiry, Kevin McGonagle said that he recalled seeing three or four people fall in a similar area, and another person crawling towards them before that person twitched and was presumably shot.2

1 AM254.22.3

2 AM254.10; Day 128/181-192

Jack Nash

86.345 This witness said in his evidence to this Inquiry1 that he recalled looking towards the rubble barricade from near the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North and seeing two bodies lying close to one another, and Alexander Nash in the middle of them waving his arm. He believed that the bodies were approximately in the centre of the rubble barricade, slightly to the east of the gap.

1 AN27.3; Day 137/18-19

Brian Rainey

86.346 Brian Rainey (who was a schoolteacher) made a written statement dated 4th February 1972.1 In this statement he described moving towards Free Derry Corner and continued:

I had just crossed the street barricade across Rossville Street, just in front of the High Flats and was approaching the small wall surrounding the block of maisonettes at Glenfada Park when I heard shouting and as I looked behind I could see Army Saracens rushing into Rossville Street. A number of young lads were running in all directions in front of them. One saracen stopped about 15–20 yards of the William Street side of the street barricade in Rossville Street. Most of the young lads stopped level with the barricade. I stepped up onto the wall which runs along the front of the maisonettes at Glenfada Park so that I could see better what was happening. I saw a couple of young lads being captured by the Army and being led towards the saracens. At this stage other soldiers were taking up positions. A number of the young lads began stoning the Army, and I saw and heard other young lads shout towards the people at the meeting to come and join them.

Then I heard a burst of gunfire. I decided to get down from the wall and I stood close against the front of the maisonettes. There came another burst of gunfire and as I looked back towards the Army I saw a closely packed group of about four young lads fall lifelessly to the ground. Their position was directly behind the Rossville Street barricade on the Glenfada Park side of the road. At this burst of shooting I got down on my hands and knees and crawled along the base of the maisonettes at Glenfada Park. Just before I turned the corner I looked back to see if what I had seen had actually happened. From the way this small group had fallen – they seemed to be piled on top of one another – I was quite certain they had been shot. Again I must state I did not see any guns except those used by the Army, nor did I see any petrol bombs nor did I hear any nail bombs. The only weapons I saw being used by a number of young lads were stones.

1 AR3.11-12

86.347 Brian Rainey also made a written statement for the Widgery Inquiry, though he did not give oral evidence.1 In this statement he gave the following account:

I looked back towards William Street and I saw armoured vehicles driving into and along Rossville Street. Everyone was running. I ran about twenty yards and stopped alongside a small wall which surrounds a block of maisonettes at Glenfada Park. I stood on top of this wall and looked back. By this time I could see two of the army vehicles had halted some thirty yards on the far side of the barricade. Soldiers had got out of the vehicles and were moving around very fast. I saw two people being arrested and dragged away. It was at this point that a number of young lads, who had run past the barricade in the direction of Free Derry Corner, returned to the barricade and began shouting and throwing stones at the army. Other lads were shouting in the direction of the meeting for the people there to come back and help them. It was just then that I heard the sound of gunfire – a couple of single shots. I got down off the small wall immediately and crouched along the front of the maisonettes. I was looking to my left – that is in the direction of the army. I was still hearing single shots ringing out – very sharp and crisp in sound. Just then I observed a group of young lads, about three or four quite close together, falling to the ground and lying motionless. I knew they had been hit. They seemed to fall quite close together. Their position was at the barricade across Rossville Street, opposite the high flats, on the Glenfada Park side of the street.

1 AR3.15-16

86.348 Brian Rainey gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. In his written statement,1 he told us that the wall on which he had first stood was the one running along the gardens on the south-eastern side of Glenfada Park South, that the youngsters at the rubble barricade had their backs to him and that the three or four he saw fall did so at about the centre of the rubble barricade:2

To my mind they had all been throwing stones, grabbing what was nearest. I could not believe my eyes. I had never seen anyone shot before. I remember the way they fell was most unusual, they just dropped together in a lifeless way, not forwards or backwards, just sideways in a heap on top of one another. To me, when they were shot they were looking towards the army position where they were throwing stones.

1 AR3.1

2 AR3.2-3

86.349 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Brian Rainey was asked about this part of his written statement:1

Q. … Is your recollection sufficiently clear for you to be able to say that you actually saw them throwing stones, or is there an element of supposition in your expression to my mind, they had all been throwing stones?

A. That was a general, there was a general comment to cover the boys that were at the barricade. Most of them, I feel, were throwing stones, but I could not say all of those who were shot were throwing stones.

1 Day 132/113

86.350 When he was shown Ciaran Donnelly’s photograph (reproduced below) of people facing the Army vehicles in Rossville Street, Brian Rainey told us that his recollection was that there were more people around the rubble barricade when people were shot than shown in that photograph.1

1 Day 132/114-115

86.351 Brian Rainey marked on the following photograph where he recalled the young men falling.1

1 Day 132/147-148; AR3.20

86.352 As will have been noted, Brian Rainey has given consistent accounts of what he heard and saw from his vantage point on the eastern side of Glenfada Park South.

Edward Rigney

86.353 It appears that this witness made a NICRA statement,1 for although the statement in question bears the name of Damion Rigney, the address corresponds with that given by Edward Rigney to this Inquiry and the signature on the manuscript copy of the NICRA statement matches the signature on his written statement to this Inquiry.2 The NICRA statement was in the following terms:

I was in Chamberlain Street when the army made their charge into Rossville Street. I ran back to the meeting at Free Derry Corner. I left this when B. Devlin was about to speak. There was shooting started. I saw a man fall at the barricade at Rossville Flats. Two boys ran out to lift him and they were shot at as well, both fell.

1 AR8.1

2 AR10.7

86.354 In his evidence to this Inquiry,1 Edward Rigney said that as he ran across Rossville Street to the southern corner of Glenfada Park South he thought that he saw people fall behind the rubble barricade as they moved from east to west.

1 AR10.5; Day 136/39-40

Ronald Wood

86.355 Ronald Wood (who had served in the Royal Navy) gave a written statement for and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry. In his written statement he described what he saw from what would appear to have been the south-eastern corner of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North:1

8. Soldiers got out of the saracens immediately they stopped and some took cover round the saracens and some took cover by a wall in front of the building which I think is called Columbcille Court.

9. The crowd was scattering away from the soldiers towards Free Derry Corner or into the turnings and alleyways off Rossville Street. A few stones were thrown at the soldiers and they fired one or two rubber bullets in return.

10. From somewhere on the William Street side of me two shots were fired. They were real bullet shots. There was no crowd between myself and the troops. That part of Rossville Street from which these two shots were fired was occupied by the troops.

11. One of those two shots hit a young fellow of I suppose about eighteen or nineteen who was standing at the barrier about two or three yards away from me. He was hit in the left side of his stomach. He had a light jacket and white T-shirt on. He was not armed. He was not firing. He was not even throwing stones. This happened no more than a minute or so after the troops got out of the saracens.

12. Several of us lifted this young fellow and took him into cover behind Glenfada Flats. As that was happening there was a whole fusillade of shots and two people further out along the barricade fell. They were young fellows as well. They were dressed in jackets and trousers. I saw no weapons on them or round their bodies. I am fairly certain that they were unarmed. In any case they definitely were not firing. No shots had come from our end of Rossville Street at all.

13. About the same time that these two young fellows were shot the first fellow whom we had carried into cover was taken into one of the flats in either Glenfada Park or Abbey Park. I saw when he was taken that he had been shot in the left side of his stomach. He was still alive then.

1 AW24.11-12

86.356 Ronald Wood gave a consistent account in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.1

1 WT4.55-59

86.357 In his written and oral evidence to this Inquiry, Ronald Wood gave an account essentially consistent with the evidence that he had given in 1972, though it appears that his recollection now is that he did not actually see Michael Kelly or the other two casualties at the moment they were shot.1

1 AW24.1-4; Day 127/1-72

86.358 We have no doubt that Ronald Wood was close to Michael Kelly when the latter was shot and then (fairly quickly afterwards), as he put it to the Widgery Inquiry,1 saw two other people who had fallen at the rubble barricade. He told us in his written statement to this Inquiry that he had been informed afterwards that these two people had been shot in the head.2 This, if he was correctly informed, indicates that he saw Michael McDaid and John Young.

1 WT4.58

2 AW24.3

Conclusions on the foregoing evidence

86.359 As we have already noted,1 much of the evidence is confused and inconsistent. Nevertheless, in our view an analysis of the evidence as a whole does enable us to reach some firm conclusions.

1 Paragraph 86.287

86.360 We are sure that William Nash, John Young and Michael McDaid were all shot and fell close together when they were slightly to the west of the centre of the rubble barricade; and that they were shot in that order.

86.361 We are also sure that, while there was an interval between the shooting of William Nash and the other two casualties, the latter two were shot within a very short time of each other.

86.362 In our view John Young was going to the aid of William Nash when he was shot; and probably Michael McDaid was doing likewise.

86.363 We are sure that all three of these casualties were facing north in the direction of soldiers who were further north along Rossville Street when they were shot; and must have been shot by one or more of those soldiers.

86.364 There is no evidence at all that any of these three casualties was armed with any form of lethal weapon. We are sure that they were not. Many of the witnesses to whom we have referred have stated expressly that none of these three, nor anyone around them, was armed with either a firearm or any form of bomb. All three had probably been throwing stones or similar missiles at the soldiers from the area of the rubble barricade. William Nash may have been throwing or about to throw a stone when he was shot; but in our view John Young was not doing so, as he was going to the aid of William Nash; and the same is probably the case with Michael McDaid. Given, as we are sure was the case, that these casualties were shot by a soldier or soldiers at ground level further along Rossville Street, the medical and scientific evidence indicates that they were not standing upright when they were hit, but were leaning forward or, as one witness put it, crouched.

Kevin McElhinney

Biographical details

86.365 Kevin McElhinney was 17 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He was the third of five children and lived with his parents in Phillip Street, Pennyburn. He was employed as a shop assistant in Lipton’s supermarket in Strand Road.1

1 AM503.1; ED44.3

Prior movements

86.366 Kevin McElhinney’s sister Roslyn (now Roslyn Doyle) told us in her written statement to this Inquiry1 that her brother left the family home after lunch to go on the march with a few friends who had called for him, including Frank Hone and Paul Coyle.

1 AD139.1

86.367 Frank Hone told us in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that he called for Kevin McElhinney on his way home from Mass and went with him to the Creggan for the start of the march, but lost him in the crowd at an early stage. Frank Hone only went on the march to throw stones, but he said that Kevin McElhinney was not interested in rioting in the way that he was.2 On the other hand, he also said that after Kevin McElhinney had been killed he told Kevin McElhinney’s father that Kevin McElhinney would not have been carrying more than a stone .

1 AH80.2

2 AH80.4

86.368 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Paul Coyle told us that he and his friend Kevin Duffy went to the Creggan where the march was to begin. He met Kevin McElhinney at the Creggan roundabout. Kevin McElhinney was carrying a paint bomb (ie a bottle containing paint). It appears from a remark attributed to Paul Coyle in an article published in the Sunday Press on 19th January 1992,2 which he confirmed in his oral evidence to this Inquiry,3 that Kevin McElhinney had told him something to the effect that he wanted to make his mark on a Saracen . We accept this evidence.

1 AC105.1

2 L242

3 Day 152/56-57

86.369 James McGeehan told us in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that he walked to the start of the march with his two brothers and his friends Kevin McElhinney and Paul Coyle. James McGeehan went on the march to William Street and continued to Barrier 14 instead of turning down Rossville Street. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 James McGeehan admitted that he had been involved in the rioting at Barrier 14. James McGeehan said that he vaguely recalled that he saw Kevin McElhinney for the last time when we were well up William Street .3 It is not clear exactly what this means. James McGeehan expressed the opinion that when they became separated Kevin McElhinney must have stayed at Little James Street, but he did not explain the reason for this belief.

1 AM227.1-AM227.2

2 Day 99/68-69

3 AM227.5

86.370 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Paddy Kelly told us that he met Kevin McElhinney at Bishop’s Field and accompanied him on the march as it made its way down to the Bogside. Paddy Kelly took part in the early stages of the rioting at Barrier 14 and then moved to Little James Street where he took part in further rioting. When the paratroopers entered the Bogside, Paddy Kelly ran down Rossville Street and across the waste ground. Paddy Kelly stated that he saw Kevin McElhinney for the last time at the junction of William Street and Rossville Street, and was not sure where Kevin McElhinney had gone subsequently.2 He gave the impression, without saying so expressly, that Kevin McElhinney had been with him all the time until then. Paddy Kelly described Kevin McElhinney as someone who might have thrown a bottle or stone in a riot, but did not say whether he had in fact done so on this occasion.

1 AK20.1

2 AK20.2-AK20.3

86.371 Larry Doherty’s photograph, which is reproduced below, shows Kevin McElhinney on the march. He is also shown on the march in a section of a cine film made by Michael Rodgers.1

1 Vid 52 00.40

86.372 A further photograph shows Kevin McElhinney at the front of the crowd as it moved down lower William Street towards Barrier 14.

86.373 Alex Morrison told us in his written statement to this Inquiry1 that he went on the march on his own but soon met Kevin McElhinney. They followed the march to the junction of Creggan Street and William Street. They then decided to take a short cut, knowing that there was to be a meeting at Free Derry Corner. Alex Morrison thought (but doubtfully)2 that they had walked via Little Diamond and Fahan Street West to Rossville Street, as indicated on the plan attached to his statement.3 On reaching Rossville Street, however, they changed their minds and went to the main entrance of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats instead of to Free Derry Corner. On Alex Morrison’s account, Kevin McElhinney then remained in the vicinity of the rubble barricade until he was killed. This evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of James McGeehan and Paddy Kelly, and with the photograph showing Kevin McElhinney at the front of the crowd in William Street, which we have reproduced above,4 and which indicates that Kevin McElhinney went down William Street instead of taking the short cut described by Alex Morrison.

1 AM429.7-AM429.8

2 Day 143/128

3 AM429.12

4 Paragraph 86.372

86.374 According to the note made by Philip Jacobson of the Sunday Times Insight Team of his interview of Alex Morrison,1 the latter had left the march at the far end of William Street after having seen it grind to halt and then seen gas and water cannon etc and then cut through to the rossville flats via glenfadda . The note does not record that Kevin McElhinney was with Alex Morrison at that stage, which raises the question whether the latter could be mistaken in his current recollection that he and Kevin McElhinney took the short cut together. The references in Philip Jacobson’s note to seeing gas and water cannon and to cutting through Glenfada Park also indicate that Alex Morrison himself must have proceeded further along William Street than he now uncertainly recalls. It is also relevant to note that Alex Morrison’s answers in the transcript of the interview that he gave to Paul Mahon on 6th April 19982 (more than two years before he signed his written statement to this Inquiry on 2nd May 2000) suggest that he was then extremely uncertain both about the route that he took and about whether Kevin McElhinney was with him before he reached Rossville Street. In our view Alex Morrison was mistaken in his uncertain recollections. We consider that it is likely that Kevin McElhinney took part in the rioting at Barrier 14.

1 AM429.2

2 X4.44.1-X4.44.5

Medical and scientific evidence

Wound pathology and ballistics

86.375 Dr Thomas Marshall, then the State Pathologist for Northern Ireland, conducted an autopsy of the body of Kevin McElhinney on 31st January 1972 at Altnagelvin Hospital.1 Dr Domhnall MacDermott (a local general practitioner who attended as an observer)2 and an RUC photographer were also present.3 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan, the experts on pathology and ballistics engaged by this Inquiry, considered the notes, report and photographs from this autopsy. Dr Marshall (now Professor Marshall), Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan all gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. Dr Marshall also appeared before the Widgery Inquiry.

1 WT9.3; D543

2 AM5.7

3 D214

86.376 In his autopsy report,1 Dr Marshall described the following five gunshot wounds:

(i) An entrance wound, 3mm in diameter, on the inner side of the left buttock, 2cm from the anus. The left posterior margin of the wound was bordered by a zone of abrasion, up to 3mm wide. The wound bled profusely. When a probe was inserted, there was a track into the abdomen, extending forwards with an inclination of 45° and a slight deviation to the left.

(ii) A lacerated oval exit wound, measuring 7cm x 4cm, in the left flank over the lower ribs, centred 13cm above the top of the iliac crest. The long axis of the wound was vertical. The wound exposed lacerated, black-soiled muscle and a fractured rib. There was a band of green discoloured skin extending downwards from the wound towards the left groin.

(iii) A circular laceration, 4mm in diameter, situated 2.5cm above the upper margin of wound (ii). A tongue of superficial abrasion, 4mm broad, extended upwards for 12mm from the upper surface of this wound.

(iv) A circular laceration, 4mm in diameter, situated 8cm above wound (iii). Around this wound, between the 9 o’clock and 12 o’clock positions, there was an arc of abrasion, 4mm broad.

(v) A laceration, measuring 5cm x 4cm (this appears to be an error for 5mm x 4mm), situated 3.5cm above wound (iv), which had a base formed by the shelved upper margins.

1 D214

86.377 Dr Marshall noted that a track passed downwards between the skin and the left lower ribs, connecting wounds (ii) to (v), and emerging into the abdominal cavity through a ragged hole in its left wall.1

1 D215

86.378 Dr Marshall also described a linear abrasion, 6cm long and up to 1cm wide, extending downwards and forwards across the outer side of the left thigh at the junction of the upper and middle thirds.1

1 D215

86.379 The internal injuries found by Dr Marshall are described in his report.1

1 D217

86.380 In the course of the autopsy, as he explained in his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Dr Marshall caused X-rays to be taken of Kevin McElhinney’s chest and pelvis. He may have done this in order to see whether any bullet or fragment of a bullet was still lodged in the body, and found that there was none.2

1 Day 207/50-53

2 Day 209/77-79

86.381 In his autopsy report, Dr Marshall summarised his conclusions about the fatal injury as follows:1

Death was due to a missile wound of the abdomen. A single missile had entered the left buttock only an inch to the left of the opening of the anus. It had passed into the left side of the pelvic cavity causing considerable laceration of muscle, fracturing of bone and a tear in the bladder. It had then divided a segment of large intestine, lacerated the artery supplying the left leg and torn open two segments of small intestine before entering the left side of the abdominal wall. Here it fragmented as it passed through the tissues outside the left lower ribs. One large piece and three small fragments emerged separately, the larger piece fracturing the ninth left rib. Death was precipitated by the bleeding into the abdomen from the lacerated artery.

The injuries were of a kind caused by a high velocity bullet.

The track of the missile through the body was upwards and forwards with a slight deviation to the left although the forwards and left deviations might have been influenced by the missile striking the pelvic bone. When the situation of the entrance wound is taken into account, it seems likely that he was bent forwards at the time he was shot from behind. Then the bullet could have been travelling almost horizontally.

1 D218

86.382 With regard to the abrasion of the left thigh, Dr Marshall’s conclusions were as follows:1

There was an abrasion extending downwards and forwards across the outerside of the left thigh. This could have been a graze from a bullet. It could have come from the same weapon if the left thigh had been flexed at the time. He might have been crouched down on all fours or climbing over something.

1 D218

86.383 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Dr Marshall confirmed the conclusions set out in his autopsy report.

1 WT9.4-WT9.6

86.384 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 Dr Marshall clarified the reference in his description of the entrance wound to an inclination of 45° and a slight deviation to the left, explaining that the former was the inclination from the horizontal plane and the latter the deviation from the sagittal plane. Dr Marshall had been asked whether the abrasion around the uppermost three wounds on the left side of Kevin McElhinney’s body might indicate that these were entrance wounds caused by fragments of a second bullet. He said that although he could not entirely rule out this possibility, he remained of the opinion that a single bullet had caused all the injuries.

1 D547

86.385 Dr Marshall also explained that the reason why he suggested that the abrasion on the left thigh might have been a graze from a bullet was that it appeared to lack some of the characteristics of a graze caused by falling or rubbing against another surface.1

1 D547-D548

86.386 In their report,1 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan observed that the mortuary photographs showed shelving of the upper margin of wound (iii) rather than the abrasion described by Dr Marshall.

1 E2.51

86.387 Herbert Donnelly, then an Assistant Scientific Officer in the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science in Belfast, examined the clothing of Kevin McElhinney under the direction of Dr John Martin, then a Principal Scientific Officer in the same department.1 In his report dated 21st February 1972,2 Dr Martin set out these findings:

A small hole in the seat area of the trousers (item 6) had traces of lead on the perimeter and is characteristic of bullet entry. A large rip in the left side seam of the jacket (item 2) is characteristic of bullet exit. There is corresponding damage to the undergarments. A small rip in the rear left shoulder of the jacket with damage to the undergarments is characteristic of a bullet fragment – possibly a piece of metal jacket. Two small fragments of lead were detected on the edge of this rip.

1 D205-D209; D741.60

2 D201

86.388 In the laboratory notes,1 Herbert Donnelly had described his findings in more detail, and had referred to the following damage to the clothing:

(i) A tear on the left leg of the trousers, 11in below the waist and 2½in behind the side seam.

(ii) A hole, with a diameter of 1/8in, situated 8in below the top of the trousers on the rear mid-seam, with corresponding damage to the underpants. Dr Martin had added a note that this hole was tested positively for lead and that it had all the appearance of an entry hole.

(iii) Two splits in the left side seam of the jacket. Only the lower of these, which was situated 8in below the armpit, was accompanied by a corresponding hole in the lining of the jacket. This split measured 1in x 1/8in.

(iv) A further hole in the jacket, measuring ½in x 1/16in, situated 1in behind the left side seam and 8¾in below shoulder level. Dr Martin had added a note that this hole was tested positively for lead particles. There was a corresponding hole in the lining of the jacket.

(v) A hole in the left side of the pullover, corresponding to the previous exhibit , ie the jacket. Herbert Donnelly did not say which of the holes in the jacket it matched.

(vi) The following four holes in the left side of the shirt:

(a) A hole measuring ½in x 1/8in, situated just in front of the side seam and 16in below shoulder level.

(b) A hole, 1½in long, situated just behind the side seam and 15in below shoulder level.

(c) A hole measuring ¾in x 1/8in, situated 1½in behind the side seam and 14½in below shoulder level.

(d) A hole measuring 3/16in x 1/16in, situated 3¼in behind the side seam and 6¼in below shoulder level.

(vii) The following three holes in the left side of the T-shirt:

(a) A hole measuring ¾in by 2in, situated 1½in in front of the side seam and 15in below shoulder level.

(b) A hole, with a diameter of 1/8in, situated 1/8in in front of the side seam and 10in below shoulder level.

(c) A hole, with a diameter of 1/8in, situated 1in behind the side seam and 8½in below the shoulder seam.

(viii) Holes in the upper and sole of the left boot. These were not accompanied by corresponding damage to the sock.

1 D205-D209

86.389 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Dr Martin said that he had not found fragments on the rip in the left shoulder of the jacket ((iv) in the list set out above), but evidence which suggested a fragment , although he then described what he had found as minute fragments . In the laboratory notes,2 he had marked an illustration of the rip pb +ve particles . Dr Martin had marked the polythene bag containing the filter paper used to test this area of the jacket with the following note:3Entry hole L shoulder Cut in cloth 2 particles of lead . In their report,4 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan commented that Dr Martin appeared to have concluded from the traces of lead found on the rip in the left shoulder of the jacket that this damage had been caused by the entrance of a fragment of a bullet not linked to the fatal injury.

1 WT9.28

2 D205

3 F11.1

4 E2.52-E2.53

86.390 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1 Dr Martin referred to the tear in the left leg of the trousers ((i) in the list set out above) as another cut … which may have suggested another particle, but I could not say . In context, it seems that he meant that it might have been caused by another bullet fragment. In their report,2 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan pointed out that in the laboratory notes3 the tear was illustrated as a right-angled defect. This damage to the left leg of the trousers, which was associated with the abrasion of the left thigh considered by Dr Marshall to be a possible bullet graze, was in the view of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan more consistent with contact with a point than with the passage of a bullet.

1 WT9.18

2 E2.53

3 D207

86.391 In summarising the gunshot wounds described by Dr Marshall in his autopsy report, we referred to the entrance wound in the left buttock as wound (i), to the large laceration in the left side as wound (ii), and to the three smaller lacerations in the left side as wounds (iii) to (v), in order from lowest to highest. In their report, Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan used different numbering. In order to avoid confusion, we set out the following summary of their conclusions1 with our numbering substituted for theirs:

Clearly a bullet entered the left buttock of Kevin McELHINNEY and penetrated the organs of the pelvis. The X-ray of the pelvis shows the point of contact with the flat bone (ilium) of the left side of the pelvis. The bullet entered at an acute angle from right to left (which is supported by the site of the abrasion rim) and was deflected nearly vertically after the contact with the pelvis.

The large oval wound [(ii)] does not have the appearance of a true exit wound, it is clearly a laceration and overlays the fractured left 9th rib. The photographs show a faint darker line joining the top margin of this wound with the bottom of wound [(iii)].

Wound [(ii)] and the lowest damage to the clothing have been caused by the passage of the bullet through the rib, and possibly against the skin, which has stretched the skin and caused it to lacerate but the bullet has not exited through this wound. Instead it has passed 2.5 cm in the subcutaneous tissues before exiting through wound [(iii)].

Wound [(iii)] has the shelved (or abraded) upper margin which is consistent with a bullet exiting upwards.

Wound [(iv)] is a re-entry wound. The small arc of abrasion on the upper front margin is consistent with an entry wound. However the site of this abrasion is not typical for a bullet travelling upwards from wound [(iii)]. Despite this it is our opinion that wound [(iv)] is the re-entry site from wound [(iii)].

There is a dark band connecting wounds [(iv)] and [(v)]. Wound [(v)] has a shelved upper margin which is consistent with a bullet exiting upwards.

The X-rays of the chest show that air (or gas) is present in areas in the soft tissues of the left side of the chest and the left axilla (armpit). This is highly suggestive of the subcutaneous passage of a bullet, but no tracks can be identified on the X-rays.

None of the X-rays show any bullet fragments that would result if the bullet had fragmented after its impact with the rib as suggested by Dr Marshall in his opinion.

The bullet passed upward through the undergarments of the chest leaving the series of holes. After leaving wound [(v)], the bullet did not pass through the jacket or its lining until it exited through the hole near the shoulder.

Dr Marshall formed the opinion that all of the injuries were caused by one bullet and we would concur with that conclusion; we differ only [o]n the behaviour of the bullet at the time of exit and in our opinion that it did not fragment.

Assuming the Normal Anatomical Position it is clear that the track of the bullet was from below upward and from right to left.

The same track could be achieved if Kevin McELHINNEY was bending over or on all fours and the shot was fired from behind and to his right.

1 E2.54-E2.55

86.392 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Dr Marshall stood by his interpretation of Kevin McElhinney’s injuries. As to Dr Shepherd’s view that wound (ii) did not have the appearance of a true exit wound, Dr Marshall said that while a textbook might describe an exit wound as a stellate wound with everted margins and no rim of abrasion, there was no such thing as a typical exit wound. He could see no reason why wound (ii) should not be an exit wound. Dr Marshall did not think that the bullet had exited intact through wound (iii), since it had passed through the pelvis and the ninth left rib and would have been unlikely to make such a neat hole. He believed that this wound was caused either by a fragment of the bullet or a fragment of the rib. Dr Marshall did not accept that wound (iv) was a re-entry wound and pointed out that he had reported a track between wounds (iii) and (iv), which was not consistent with the proposition that the bullet had exited through wound (iii) and re-entered through wound (iv). He thought that wounds (iv) and (v) had also been caused by the exit of a fragment of bullet or rib. Dr Marshall agreed that no bullet fragments were shown in the X-rays. He accepted that if the bullet had fragmented he would expect at least to have found some small fragments in the body, but he said that their absence did not entirely rule … out the possibility that the bullet had fragmented.

1 Day 207/61-84

86.393 Dr Marshall’s attention was drawn1 to a mortuary photograph showing an area of shading on the skin between wounds (ii) and (iii) and an area of reddening between wounds (iv) and (v). He said that he did not know what had caused these marks and that they were not necessarily attributable to the subcutaneous passage of a bullet or fragment. He was asked whether he would have expected to see damage to the surface of the skin if a bullet had passed internally between wounds (iii) and (iv), and said that there was no reason why such damage should have occurred.

1 Day 207/132-136

86.394 Dr Marshall said1 that although the track of the bullet was not definitive because it might have been deflected on hitting the pelvis, nevertheless the site of the entrance wound and the general course of the bullet through the body suggested that Kevin McElhinney had been bending forwards, kneeling or crawling when he was shot. The bullet was fired from behind Kevin McElhinney, but Dr Marshall did not accept that the rim of abrasion on the margin of the entrance wound showed that the bullet had necessarily come from the right.

1 Day 207/102-107; Day 207/130-132

86.395 Dr Marshall said1 that he had suggested that the graze on the left thigh might have been caused by a bullet fired from the same weapon as the fatal shot because it was a linear abrasion in the vicinity of the entrance wound and aligned in the right kind of direction. However, he agreed that it was possible that the graze was not caused by a bullet.

1 Day 207/84-86

86.396 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1 Dr Shepherd said that he and Mr O’Callaghan remained of the view that their interpretation of Kevin McElhinney’s wounds was correct and that Dr Marshall’s was wrong. They found it impossible to believe that a bullet could have fragmented in the way proposed by Dr Marshall without leaving any fragments in the body, which would have been visible on the X-rays. They also considered that the appearance of wounds (iii), (iv) and (v) suggested that they had been caused by a round object such as an intact bullet, rather than a fragment of a bullet or bone. Dr Shepherd also maintained his view that the bullet had entered Kevin McElhinney’s body from the right.2

1 Day 229/20-24; Day 229/90-92; Day 229/101-102

2 Day 229/63-64

86.397 The photographs of Kevin McElhinney’s body taken in the mortuary show the wounds described by Dr Marshall. We have examined these photographs but do not reproduce them here. A diagram appended to the report of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan1 illustrates the position of the wounds and of the abrasion of the left thigh.

1 E2.80

86.398 As noted above,1 Dr Marshall thought that an abrasion on Kevin McElhinney’s left thigh might have been the result of a bullet that grazed him before he was fatally injured, though Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan were sceptical about this on the basis of the nature of the damage to the clothing, which Dr Marshall had not considered. In our view it is possible that a bullet grazed Kevin McElhinney before a second bullet caused his fatal injury, since some civilians described bullets striking the ground around him, but we are not certain about this. As to the other suggestions that Kevin McElhinney was struck by more than one bullet, we have concluded that this is unlikely to have happened. In our view, apart possibly from the injury to the left thigh, Kevin McElhinney was struck only by the bullet that caused the fatal injuries. We accept the view of Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan that this bullet is unlikely to have fragmented. The bullet entered Kevin McElhinney’s body from behind him and, though we are not certain about this, probably from his right.

1 Paragraphs 86.382, 86.385, 86.390 and 86.395

Tests for firearm discharge and explosives residue

86.399 Dr Martin tested the jacket that Kevin McElhinney was wearing when he was shot, and swabs taken from his hands, for the presence of lead particles. Dr Martin detected a density of lead particles on the back of the jacket that he considered to be significantly above the range normally encountered . He also detected lead particles on the swabs from the back and web of the left hand, but none on the swabs from the right hand. He stated in his report the conclusion that the nature and distribution of lead particles on the swabs and jacket was similar to that produced by discharge gases from firearms. However, given his view that the damage to the left shoulder of the jacket suggested that Kevin McElhinney had been hit by a fragment of a bullet, Dr Martin said that it was also possible that the lead particles on the back of the jacket and on the left hand had come from that bullet.1Dr Martin also detected lead particles on Kevin McElhinney’s trousers2but did not comment on these in his report.

1 D201-D202

2 D204; D605-D606

86.400 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,1Dr Martin said that it would not be safe to interpret his results as showing that Kevin McElhinney or someone close to him had been handling a firearm, in view of the alternative possible explanation of the lead particles as having originated from a fragmented bullet.

1 WT9.15; WT9.17-WT9.18; WT9.28

86.401 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1Dr Martin confirmed that he had concluded that he could not establish whether Kevin McElhinney had been exposed to firearm discharge residues or to particles from a fragmented bullet.

1 D608

86.402 Dr John Lloyd, the independent scientific expert engaged by this Inquiry, summarised in his report1his overall conclusions about the tests for lead particles conducted by Dr Martin. He considered that, in view of the lack of control testing and the likelihood of spurious contamination, Dr Martin’s results were of no evidential value.

1 E1.51-E1.52

86.403 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1Dr Martin accepted that unless there was evidence from other sources to indicate an association between any of the deceased and a weapon, it would be unwise to interpret his findings as other than contamination .

1 Day 226/2

86.404 In the laboratory notes1Dr Martin had recorded that he had detected two specks of lead on the left hand of Kevin McElhinney, one large smear on the web of that hand, 11 particles on the jacket, and 25 particles and one smudge on the trousers. In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry,2Dr Martin said that a person operating the bolt of a rifle might acquire a smear of lead on the palm of his hand, but Dr Martin did not attach the same significance to lead smears elsewhere on the hand.

1 D203-D205

2 WT9.36

86.405 Dr Lloyd stated in his report1that it was the general, but not the invariable, rule that the deposition of firearms discharge residue became weaker as the distance from the point of origin increased. Hence the results in Kevin McElhinney’s case could more readily be explained on the assumption that the source of the particles, or at least the majority of the particles, was other than the firing of a gun by the deceased. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2Dr Martin accepted that this was fair reasoning .

1 E1.32-E1.33

2 Day 226/82-85

86.406 Dr Lloyd also observed in his report1that the small number of particles found on the left hand could have been transferred from the clothing, and did not constitute acceptable evidence that Kevin McElhinney had used a firearm. In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2Dr Lloyd confirmed this view. He added that the presence of the particles detected by Dr Martin would be explicable if Kevin McElhinney had been crawling on a surface contaminated by fragmenting bullets.

1 E1.45-E1.46

2 Day 227/46-47

86.407 In these circumstances we are of the view that there is no valid scientific evidence that Kevin McElhinney had been handling firearms or had been close to someone doing so.

86.408 Alan Hall, then a Senior Scientific Officer in the same department as Dr Martin, examined the outer clothing of Kevin McElhinney for explosives residue. None was detected.1There is, therefore, no scientific evidence that Kevin McElhinney had been in contact with explosives.

1 D197

Kevin McElhinney’s clothing

86.409 Kevin McElhinney was wearing a brown striped suit with a pink shirt under a brown/green round-necked pullover.1

1 D195; D206

Where Kevin McElhinney was when he was shot

86.410 There is substantial and convincing evidence that Kevin McElhinney was shot when he was close to the south-western door of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. We refer to this evidence when considering below1what he was doing when he was shot.

1 Paragraphs 86.414–468

When Kevin McElhinney was shot

86.411 Kevin McElhinney was in our view the last person killed by Army gunfire in Sector 3. In their joint NICRA statement,1 Helen and Margaret Johnston described seeing from a small alleyway three men lying on the rubble barricade, and beside them on his back an elderly man, who appeared to be alive as he was moving his arms. The three men were in our view Michael McDaid, John Young and William Nash; and the elderly man Alexander Nash. Helen and Margaret Johnston recorded that they then saw two boys crawling along the road towards the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, one of whom then appeared to be shot. We have no doubt that this was Kevin McElhinney. There is nothing in this statement that indicates whether or not Alexander Nash had been wounded by this stage.

1 AJ11.1

86.412 In her oral evidence to this Inquiry, Helen Johnston said that as she and her sister Margaret watched from the north-eastern corner of Glenfada Park South she saw Alexander Nash walking to the barricade with a handkerchief and then falling.1 However, her recollection was that Alexander Nash had come from somewhere further down towards Free Derry Corner, whereas the evidence of Alexander Nash and others, which we accept, was that he walked out from the south-eastern entrance to Glenfada Park North. Since Helen Johnston had said nothing about seeing Alexander Nash walking out to the rubble barricade in her NICRA statement, and since in our view Alexander Nash had come from the entrance to Glenfada Park North, her recollections about where he had come from are to this extent faulty, though we have no doubt that she was doing her best to help us. As will be seen when we discuss the circumstances in which Alexander Nash was wounded,2 we have concluded that he was wounded some time after he had gone out to the rubble barricade. It is possible, therefore, that Alexander Nash was wounded after Kevin McElhinney had been shot, though we are not sure about this.

1 Day 228/33-39 2Paragraph 86.552

86.413 We should note that Margaret Johnston told us that she did not remember much about making the NICRA statement and that her sister’s memory had been better than hers, though she did recall seeing Alexander Nash at the rubble barricade.1

1 AJ13.5

What Kevin McElhinney was doing when he was shot

86.414 A number of witnesses gave accounts of seeing Kevin McElhinney as or immediately after he was shot.

Alex Morrison

86.415 We have already referred to some of the evidence of this witness when discussing the shooting of Hugh Gilmour and when discussing the prior movements of Kevin McElhinney.1 He gave this account in his NICRA statement,2 part of which we have already quoted when discussing the shooting of Hugh Gilmour:3

When the soldiers entered Rossville St I retreated and ran towards the entrance of the High Flats. From there I saw a batch of soldiers getting out of a Saracen opposite. One of these soldiers ran towards a wall at the maisonettes opposite the High Flats – he aimed the rifle at a group of young boys who were standing on the Free Derry Corner side of a barricade of rubble which is directly outside the main doors of the High Flats. These boys had retreated to this point as the army came along Rossville St. I saw one of these boys fall just as a soldier fired from his position at the maisonettes. This was the first boy shot.

Immediately I heard further shots which came from the soldiers and were directed at the other boys at the barricade of rubble. We retreated immediately to the doors of the flats. Kevin McElhinney was running alongside me. We were crouched and running at the same time – making for the main door of the flats. As I entered I heard Kevin – who was now4just behind me shout I’m hit … I’m hit … I dived on in the door and went up the stairs thinking that Kevin was behind me. I realised that no one was behind me so I ran back down and saw Kevin lying dead just inside the door. Others lifted him and took him upstairs. Kevin was beside me for the few moments before he was shot. At no time had a nail bomb, petrol bomb, gun or any other lethal weapon.

1 Paragraphs 86.138–140 and 86.373–374

2 AM429.1

3 Paragraph 86.138

4 It is clear from the manuscript that “not ” in the typed version was a transcription error for “now ”.

86.416 We have referred above1 to the fact that Philip Jacobson of the Sunday Times Insight Team interviewed Alex Morrison. According to his note,2 this witness found himself standing next to Kevin McElhinney on the William Street side of the rubble barricade. They both were vigorously stoning the army, at extreme range and Alex Morrison noticed that Kevin McElhinney had a rubber bullet protruding from his pocket. After dealing with where Alex Morrison said that he had come from, a matter to which we have referred above,3 the note continued:4

morrison says he saw the paras come in and run from their pigs; he saw a soldier run to the wall of the maisonettes opposite the north end of the flats and aim at a group of youths standing on or just in front of the barricade. morrison says he saw one youth fall – he has no idea who it was – and then, as he and mcelhinney turned to run, there was another burst of shots. He put his head down and ran flat out for the flats door, crossing the barricade on the way; mcelhinney was alongside him at this stage, nearest to the flats wall. we were both crouched over, you know, to try and make a smaller target. morrison got ahead of mcelhinney and rushed in through the main flats doors; at that moment he heard mcelhinney shout I’m hit … I’m hit . Morrison was by his own admission scared shitless by now and he just dashed ahead up the stairs to the first floor before his panic subsided. I came running down again and there was this body on the first floor just inside the door. he was lifted up and carried upsta[ir]s and at first I didnt recognise it was kevin the face was so white and disturbed (pj; I assume he means distorted). but then they set him down and somebody looking for identification took the rubber bullet out and I then knew it was kevin. he recalls seeing a knights of malta man with kevin (pj: jim norris) and thinks there was also a cameraman (mailey, who helped carry kevin upstairs). after that morrison stayed out of sight on the first floor. he is, of course, adam[a]nt that mcelhinney had no gun, nail bomb or other lethal weapon at the time he saw him, though he volunteered the information that kevin was always away stoning and had been stoning just before he got it.

1 Paragraph 86.374

2 AM429.2

3 Paragraph 86.374

4 AM429.2-3

86.417 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Alex Morrison said that he only assumed that Kevin McElhinney was behind him. He reached the entrance to the flats, ran upstairs and lay down on a balcony taking cover in a state of panic … for some time . He then returned down a flight of stairs and saw Kevin McElhinney’s body on the first floor.1 He said that it was possible that he had heard Hugh Gilmour and not Kevin McElhinney cry out that he had been hit.2

1 AM429.8; Day 143/136; Day 143/141-142

2 Day 143/145-148; AM429.9

86.418 As we have already noted1when considering the circumstances in which Hugh Gilmour was shot, it is difficult to place reliance on Alex Morrison’s current belief that it was Hugh Gilmour that he had heard. We have concluded that it is probable that Alex Morrison was just in front of Kevin McElhinney and did hear him (not Hugh Gilmour) call out that he had been hit, as they both made for the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

1 Paragraph 86.140

Liam Mailey

86.419 Liam Mailey, the freelance photographer, gave a NICRA1 statement,2 an undated interview to the Sunday Times3 and a written statement for and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry. These accounts were consistent with one another. In his accounts to the Widgery Inquiry he said that after he had taken the photograph showing Fr Bradley walking away from the group surrounding the body of Michael Kelly along the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North (which we have shown above)4 he stepped back into the southern lobby of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats as people ran into that area. Patrick O’Hagan was standing in front of him. Liam Mailey gave an account of seeing at least four people run into the entrance before a fifth or sixth person collapsed face first through the door. He later learned that this was Kevin McElhinney. Liam Mailey also said that he saw what he assumed was the same bullet as hit Kevin McElhinney strike and splinter a doorpost. He thought that it then ricocheted and grazed Patrick O’Hagan on the ankle. Liam Mailey said that Kevin McElhinney had no weapon of any description. Patrick O’Hagan had told him that he had seen Kevin McElhinney approaching the door in a crawling or crouched position.5

1 The typeface and layout of this document have the appearance of a transcript of a Keville interview, which it may be, but there is no interview of Liam Mailey on the surviving Keville tapes.

2 M50.60

3 M50.50-54

4 Paragraphs 86.209 and 86.341

5 M50.58; WT7.33; WT7.39; WT7.47

86.420 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Liam Mailey said that as he walked down the stairs towards the entrance of Block 1 he saw a man fall through the doorway, and a piece of wood splinter from the doorpost. He presumed that the same bullet had hit the man and the doorpost, although he accepted that he might have been wrong about this. It was his belief that the man had either been shot at the moment that he saw him, or very shortly before. From material that he had seen and heard after the event, he believed that this man was Kevin McElhinney.1 In his oral evidence2 he said that Kevin McElhinney was very close to … or possibly on the ground when he saw him fall through the door. Hence Kevin McElhinney may not have been falling from his full standing height. He said that he could no longer recall who Patrick O’Hagan was, and did not recall him being hit by a ricochet.3

1 M50.4-5; Day 163/127-129

2 Day 163/125-126

3 Day 163/148-149

Patrick O’Hagan

86.421 In his NICRA statement,1 Patrick O’Hagan recorded that he was in the doorway of the Rossville Flats at a time when six people crawled towards this area, under fire from the Army. The first five reached cover, but the sixth man was shot, was pulled into the flats, possibly by the person who preceded him, and was attended by a first aid man. Patrick O’Hagan described the youth as about 15 years old and unarmed.

1 AO44.1

86.422 In his handwritten statement dated 22nd February 1972,1 Patrick O’Hagan gave a consistent account, adding that the youths had been trapped at the rubble barricade by Army gunfire before they began crawling to the flats. Patrick O’Hagan here said that the youth who was shot had collapsed partially around the open door . He had seen him several times during his crawl and was sure that he was not armed.

1 AO44.12-13

86.423 Patrick O’Hagan did not mention seeing the door splinter, or being grazed by a ricochet, in either of these statements.

86.424 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Patrick O’Hagan said that he only saw two boys crawling towards the flats, both unarmed as far as he could tell. The second one stood up and made a run for the doorway, which he reached safely. Patrick O’Hagan then became aware that the other youth had stopped crawling. A couple of people moved from the doorway and dragged him in. Patrick O’Hagan recalled that the youth was alive when he left the scene. Patrick O’Hagan again did not mention being struck by a ricochet, but did say that he saw the door splinter, although he thought that this occurred as he ran to the doorway himself, before seeing any casualties. He told us that he believed that his statement dated 22nd February 1972 was more accurate than his other accounts.1 He emphasised that his current recollection was very uncertain and unreliable. Patrick O’Hagan did not give oral evidence.

1 AO44.5-7

James Norris

86.425 James Norris was an Order of Malta Ambulance Corps volunteer who was in the Rossville Flats treating Hugh Hegarty, who had been hit by a gas canister in William Street, when firing began. In his report to the Order of Malta Ambulance Corps, he stated that he left the flat to find another first aid volunteer or a doctor to assist, and after brushing past numerous people who were taking cover he began to descend the stairs. As he did so, he was told that someone had been shot around the corner from the flats doorway . When James Norris reached the bottom stair, he saw a cameraman and just at that a boy aged between 16–20 years fell in the doorway . This youth was bleeding profusely and one of his legs was shaking violently.1

1 AN20.18-19

86.426 James Norris made another written statement, which contains a broadly consistent account, which he told us that he probably wrote within days of Bloody Sunday.1 In that account he said that he was told about a casualty just at the door of the flats and ran down the stairs in time to see a youth fall in the doorway. He noted that one of the youth’s legs shook violently.2

1 Day 147/133

2 AN20.25

86.427 In his evidence to this Inquiry, James Norris said that he did not recall being told that a man had been shot, and said that the lobby was deserted when the doors were flung open and a fella crashed through the doors as if he was in full flight . He thought that he must have been shot as he came through the doors as he seemed to collapse . James Norris caught him and lowered him to the ground. The youth was, he thought, wearing a green suit and white shirt with no pullover, and was bleeding from his left side. James Norris said that Liam Mailey (whose account of this incident he did not accept) joined him at some point after the entry of the youth into the lobby.1 James Norris said that his recollection was that he only treated one person who came through the doors of the Rossville Flats. He did not accept the suggestion that he might have treated one casualty at the door, and one further up the stairs.2

1 AN20.3-4; Day 147/94-101

2 Day 147/136-137

86.428 We took the view that where his account to us differed from his 1972 accounts, it would be wise to rely upon the latter rather than the former.

Gerard Grieve

86.429 Gerard Grieve said in his Keville interview1 that he had been one of about a dozen youths who had been standing at the rubble barricade. After they heard some shooting seven of them ran away. Gerard Grieve was the fourth of these to reach the southern entrance to the Rossville Flats. He then heard another shot. Kevin McElhinney fell and Gerard Grieve saw him creeping into the doorway . Gerard Grieve went to help him, and four further shots rang out and hit the door. Gerard Grieve then pulled Kevin McElhinney into the doorway. Gerard Grieve said that Kevin McElhinney had nothing in his hands.

1 X2.34.45

86.430 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Gerard Grieve said that before this incident he had run through the Rossville Flats car park, where he had seen Fr Daly attending to Jackie Duddy. Gerard Grieve had gained access to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats after a man in the crowd had kicked in a panel in a locked door. He had walked to the barricade when we were sure that the shooting had stopped . A group of around 12 to 15 people stood at the barricade for a couple of minutes (without throwing stones) until a burst of fire led to Gerard Grieve and the four or five people immediately next to him diving to the ground. During a lull in the firing a number of these people ran in a crouched posture to the south-western entrance of Block 1. As his turn came, Gerard Grieve saw a soldier at the Kells Walk walls (the third in from Rossville Street), described in his oral evidence as the second soldier with his visor up in the following photograph taken by Jeffrey Morris, aim at him.1

1 AG55.4-6; Day 147/21-23

86.431 Gerard Grieve told us that he reached the doorway before the soldier could fire.1 He said that he ran inside the foyer of Block 1, and from there heard a thud and a man calling that he had been shot. Gerard Grieve could not see this person because the door was in the way. However, he had been aware of someone behind him as he ran. After taking cover for a few seconds, Gerard Grieve went to the doorway and saw a young man crawling towards him. Gerard Grieve pulled him into the flats from the cover of the doorway, and as he did so he heard more shots ring out, one of which hit the doorway. He later learned that the injured man was Kevin McElhinney, and that he died of his injuries. Gerard Grieve said that this man had been using his hands to crawl, and had been carrying nothing in them.2

1 AG55.6; Day 147/23-24

2 AG55.6; Day 147/24-28; Day 147/31

John Patrick Friel

86.432 In an undated statement made in 1972,1 John Patrick Friel recorded that as he reached the ground floor having run down the stairs at the (south) end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats he saw someone’s body falling in the front door of the flats. People dragged the person who was bleeding into the flats and carried him up the stairs. He described how a priest had asked him to search the dead boy’s clothing for identification, but said that he found only a rubber bullet in the left-hand pocket of the boy’s jacket, though he later learned that the casualty was Kevin McElhinney.

1 AF32.14-16

86.433 In his evidence to this Inquiry, John Patrick Friel could only state that when he first saw this casualty his shoulders were inside the door and the rest of his body was outside . He was not sure whether the casualty had fallen in this position, or had been dragged there.1

1 AF32.5; Day 118/142-143

Fr Terence O’Keeffe

86.434 Fr O’Keeffe has given consistent accounts of how, after he had seen the bodies on the rubble barricade, he saw a youth dragging himself towards the south-western entrance to the Rossville Flats. Fr O’Keeffe formed the impression from the manner of the youth’s movement (ie crawling more on his side and back than his front) that this man had been injured in the leg. The youth had nearly made it to the doorway when he hauled himself up – possibly on the first of the poles that supported the porch roof – in order to get over the step. At this point his body jerked and Fr O’Keeffe assumed that a bullet had hit him. The youth subsequently made his way, or was dragged, through the doors of the flats.1 Fr O’Keeffe saw no-one around this youth at the time that he was shot.2

1 WT5.8-9; WT5.18-19; H21.38; H21.47

2 WT5.18; H21.47; Day 127/117-118

86.435 In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, Fr O’Keeffe said that he did not see the man dragging anything with his feet. Although he could only see one hand when the man was crawling, he did not see him drop anything when he hauled himself up and hence he deduced that he had not been carrying anything with his hands either.1

1 WT5.19

86.436 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Fr O’Keeffe told us that the youth lay still after he had been shot, and he had to be dragged into the flats.1 However, in his written statement for and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry he seemed to imply that the youth was able to scramble into the flats of his own accord.2 In his interview with Philip Jacobson of the Sunday Times Insight Team, Fr O’Keeffe is recorded as saying that the youth half-fell through the doorway.3

1 H21.47

2 H21.22; WT5.18-19

3 H21.38

86.437 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Fr O’Keeffe said that the manner in which the youth was dragging himself across the ground would have made it very difficult for him to have been carrying anything.1

1 Day 127/117-118

Helen and Margaret Johnston

86.438 We have referred above1 to the evidence of these witnesses. According to a joint NICRA statement that she made with her sister Margaret,2 Helen Johnston was at the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North. She recorded in that statement and in her written statement to this Inquiry3 that she saw two youths crawling towards the south-western entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. As the first youth made it to the doorway she saw the second youth’s body jerk as if he had been shot. In her evidence to this Inquiry she said that she saw this youth jerk twice, once at a point between the rubble barricade and the doorway, and again when he was at the doorway. People who were taking cover at the doorway subsequently pulled this youth into the flats. Helen Johnston also told this Inquiry that she did not believe that either youth was carrying a weapon.

1 Paragraphs 86.328–330 and 86.411–413

2 AJ11.1

3 AJ11.3-4

86.439 In her oral evidence to this Inquiry, Helen Johnston said that she believed that the youths may have been coming from the rubble barricade, and that they were crawling on their stomachs.1 Margaret Johnston told us in her written statement to this Inquiry that she did not see this incident, although her sister told her about it afterwards.2

1 Day 228/41-43

2 AJ13.5

Peter Lancaster

86.440 According to his written statement to this Inquiry, Peter Lancaster had taken cover beneath some stairs at the north-eastern corner of Glenfada Park South. He told us that he saw two men crawling south along the wall of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats towards the entrance to the building. The first managed to reach the entrance, but the second was shot about three yards short. Peter Lancaster saw the man’s body jerk, but the man still managed to crawl a little further and was then helped through the doorway. Peter Lancaster described the man as crawling on his stomach using only his hands and feet, as he did not want to raise himself from the ground. He could see that the man who was shot had nothing in his hands.1

1 AL4.4

86.441 In an undated statement made in 1972,1 Peter Lancaster gave an account that was broadly consistent with his evidence to us, but implied that the second man began to crawl just after the first man had reached the doorway, having previously been hugging the ground for cover . He also referred to the second man being hit in the back or the lower region of his body, and to seeing a second shot splinter the doorway of the flats. Peter Lancaster said that the first youth was responsible for dragging the second into the building and said in terms that the second youth was unarmed.

1 AL4.9

86.442 Peter Lancaster did not give oral evidence.

Barry Liddy

86.443 In his Keville interview1 and in his undated statement made in 1972,2 Barry Liddy said that after he had seen Michael Kelly and other casualties at the rubble barricade he saw another youth, on the far (ie eastern) side of the road, apparently with a leg injury. Barry Liddy and others urged him to remain under the limited cover of the barricade. The youth either did not hear, or ignored, this advice and began to crawl towards the southern entrance to the Rossville Flats as the soldiers continued to fire towards him. Barry Liddy recorded in his undated statement that although he saw the youth reach cover he later learned that he had been shot dead. Barry Liddy did not in either account give a specific description of observing the moment when the youth was shot.

1 AL13.14-16

2 AL13.3-6

86.444 In his interview with Paul Mahon,1 Barry Liddy said that he recalled seeing two youths on the eastern side of Rossville Street by the barricade. People in the doorway encouraged them to move towards the entrance to Block 1. The first youth began to move in this direction while the other watched from the barricade. The crawling youth was shot from behind about halfway between the barricade and the flats. Barry Liddy saw his jacket jump. The youth cried out and ceased moving.

1 X4.49.39-45

86.445 Barry Liddy died in 1998 and did not give evidence to this Inquiry.

Patrick Joseph Norris

86.446 In his Keville interview Patrick Joseph Norris said that he saw one shot pass a youth crawling along Rossville Street and hit a door. The next bullet hit the youth. Patrick Joseph Norris thought that the youth had died. The youth was not armed with petrol bombs, acid, not even stones .1

1 AN24.20

86.447 Patrick Joseph Norris told us in his written statement to this Inquiry that from a position at the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North he saw Kevin McElhinney shot as he crawled on his own towards the doorway of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. Patrick Joseph Norris then saw people coming from the doorway of Block 1 to pull him into the building.1 Patrick Joseph Norris said in his oral evidence that what he had said in his Keville interview was in accordance with his present recollection.2

1 AN24.4

2 Day 167/136

Margaret Healy

86.448 In her NICRA statement1 Margaret Healy recorded that she took refuge in a house in Glenfada Park. She then gave the following account:

Looking out of the window of the flat where I was taking refuge, I saw a soldier in a kneeling position. He was approached by another soldier who seemed to be in a position of authority and his attention was drawn to a young boy who was crawling along the ground. The soldier who had been kneeling rose to his feet, took aim at the boy and pulled the trigger. I saw a red flash spurting from his rifle. The boy stopped moving and someone from the flats pulled him into the doorway. The soldier who fired the shot followed the instructions given him by the other soldier and fired at targets as he was told.

1 AH51.8

86.449 Margaret Healy told us in her written statement to this Inquiry that as she looked out of the window of a flat at the northern end of Glenfada Park North she saw two soldiers at the northern gable of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. One, who was standing up, smoking a cigarette and holding a baton, appeared to draw the attention of a kneeling soldier to the south end of the block. The kneeling soldier then rose, aimed his weapon and fired at a young man who was crawling towards the entrance to Block 1. Margaret Healy told us she saw the muzzle flash. The young man’s body jerked. Margaret Healy briefly covered her eyes, and when she opened them again she saw the young man being pulled into the entrance to Block 1. The young man was crawling with his palms flat to the ground and hence could not have been carrying anything. At the time of this incident a lot of people were trying to gain access through this doorway, but Margaret Healy did not mention any other youths crawling in that direction.1

1 AH51.3-4; AH51.7

86.450 Margaret Healy is dead and did not give oral evidence to this Inquiry. We have considered the account that she gave to Paul Mahon.1We are left in doubt as to whether she was seeking in her various accounts to describe the shooting of Hugh Gilmour or Kevin McElhinney, and concluded that it would be unwise to place reliance on her accounts.

1 X4.14.12-X4.14.17; X4.14.31-X4.14.32; X4.14.34

Robert Devine

86.451 In his written statement to this Inquiry, Robert Devine told us that he was sheltering under the pram-ramp of Glenfada Park South. He appears to have seen Kevin McElhinney just after he had been shot. Robert Devine referred only to seeing one man crawling in this area, and told us that a number of people moved from the doorway in order to drag him in.1 Robert Devine did not give oral evidence to this Inquiry.

1 AD42.3

Paul Coyle

86.452 In his evidence to this Inquiry,1 Paul Coyle said that he saw a man crawling along the pavement beneath the western wall of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, at a point between the rubble barricade and the entrance to the flats. The man was unarmed and was crawling on his front. Paul Coyle saw him stop moving, but could not state categorically that he had been shot. He later learned that it could have been Kevin McElhinney. In an interview with Tony Stark of Praxis Films Ltd,2 Paul Coyle said that he saw two people crawling in that direction. He said in his oral evidence to this Inquiry3 that he had a vague recollection of this, but could not recall any further detail.

1 AC105.7; Day 152/69-70

2 O5.16

3 Day 152/70-71

Fergus McAteer

86.453 Fergus McAteer made a statement in 19721 in which he described being with his brother Eamon and looking across from the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North after learning of three people who had been shot and were lying on the rubble barricade. This statement continued:

To my left I looked across Rossville Street and saw, a few feet from the door of the High Flats, a man lying on the footpath. He had been shot in either the right side or leg. He was bleeding. He dragged himself inside the door of the flats. I could see no weapon or gun of any description on the footpath where he had been.

1 AM42.1

86.454 Fergus McAteer gave consistent accounts in his written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.1

1 AM42.8-9; Day 168/35-56

Eamon McAteer

86.455 This witness is the brother of Fergus McAteer. He told us that he also saw a man crawling close to the wall of the western side of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, who he was sure was being shot at as he could see chips and bullets coming off the pavement around him. I was sure that he was being shot at. It was heart rending to see. I do not know whether he remained there or what happened to him. 1In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Eamon McAteer said that the reason he did not notice what happened to the man was that his attention was drawn to people running away across Glenfada Park North. He also said that he would have noticed if the man had had a rifle with him and would have recorded this in his statement if he had done so.2

1 AM41.4

2 Day 135/15-17

86.456 Eamon McAteer also made a statement in 1972, but recorded nothing about seeing a crawling man in that statement.1 This may have been because he did not know what had happened to the crawling man.

1 AM41.33

86.457 It is our view that the person Fergus and Eamon McAteer described was Kevin McElhinney, though as we have explained above,1 he was shot in the left buttock, not in the leg.

1 Paragraphs 86.375–398

Other witnesses

86.458 We have considered the evidence of Sean O’Neill,1 Christopher James Doherty,2 Eugene Bradley3 and Charlie Downey,4 but in our view it provides little assistance on the matter under discussion. Sean O’Neill claimed to have seen Kevin McElhinney running with a group of people including Hugh Gilmour, who was clutching his stomach and who shouted I’m hit . In our view this is a false memory, as Kevin McElhinney was not shot at the same time as Hugh Gilmour. Christopher James Doherty described seeing a man he thought was shot in the leg crawling on his back and then going into the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. It is possible that this was Kevin McElhinney, but there is no other evidence to suggest that this casualty was at any stage on his back. In our view this detail is a false memory. Eugene Bradley described seeing a man being shot in the front or side as the man was crawling backwards along Rossville Street facing north, almost in a sitting position. Eugene Bradley made no statement in 1972 and in our view, though he may have seen Kevin McElhinney, his recollection of the manner in which the man was crawling is again a false memory. No other witness gave a similar description and Kevin McElhinney was, as we have already explained,5 shot in the left buttock and could not have been so wounded while facing north. Charlie Downey saw Kevin McElhinney only when the latter was lying inside Block 1 of the Rossville Flats after he had been shot.

1 AO65.9

2 AD58.1; AD58.7-8; AD58.12

3 AB113.2; Day 169/165

4 AD133.5

5 Paragraphs 86.375–398

Consideration of the foregoing evidence

86.459 There are inconsistencies between the various accounts that we have considered above.1 However, in our view many of the inconsistencies in the civilian evidence are attributable to understandable errors in observation or recollection of frightening events taking place in rapid succession. Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, we have concluded that it is possible to draw three firm conclusions from the civilian evidence viewed as a whole.

1 Paragraphs 86.415–458

86.460 In the first place, we are sure that Kevin McElhinney was shot when he was crawling or moving in a crouched position in a southerly direction from the area of the rubble barricade and when he had come close to the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. The evidence of the eyewitnesses that he was moving in this manner is in our view supported by the medical and scientific evidence.

86.461 In the second place, we are sure that Kevin McElhinney was posing no threat to soldiers when he was shot. He was simply trying to crawl to safety. In our view he is likely to have been throwing stones towards the soldiers, but this activity was posing no serious threat and had ceased by the time he was seeking to escape and was shot. We are also sure that Kevin McElhinney did not have a rifle or any other form of weapon with or near him when he was shot. There is nothing in the civilian evidence to suggest that he had anything with him that could have been mistaken for a rifle. Indeed, as will have been seen, a number of civilian witnesses were sure that he had nothing with him at all.

86.462 In the third place, we have, when considering the events of Sector 2 earlier in this report1 considered and rejected the submission made on behalf of many of the soldiers2 (based on descriptions of a casualty given by civilians that were said not to match Kevin McElhinney) that apart from Kevin McElhinney, there was another, unidentified, casualty who was shot and taken into Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. As we describe elsewhere in this report,3 Kevin McElhinney was carried from Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, put into an ambulance and taken to Altnagelvin Hospital. Although they were walking wounded, witnesses may well have seen Patrick Brolly and Hugh Hegarty being escorted out of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. We have found nothing to suggest that any witness saw or might have seen any other casualty taken from Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. For reasons that we have already given,4 we reject any suggestion that witnesses may have seen other casualties but somehow knew or had been told that no mention should be made of them.

1 Paragraphs 60.9–49

2 FS7.1768-1770; FS8.1394-1401

3 Paragraphs 124.13–20

4 Paragraph 60.46

86.463 Some witnesses referred to seeing a body being dragged into the Rossville Flats (eg Gerard Grieve, Patrick O’Hagan, Helen Johnston, Peter Lancaster, Patrick Joseph Norris, Margaret Healy and Robert Devine), whereas others described a youth falling or crashing through the doors (eg Liam Mailey and James Norris). In our view it is probable that people did help Kevin McElhinney through the door.

86.464 Some witnesses saw only one person moving from the barricade to the Rossville Flats (eg Fr O’Keeffe, Patrick Joseph Norris, Margaret Healy and Robert Devine), whereas others (eg Helen Johnston and Peter Lancaster) saw two. The evidence of the latter is in that respect consistent with the evidence of soldiers (considered earlier in this report1) of seeing two crawling men.

1 Chapter 84

86.465 Gerard Grieve, Patrick O’Hagan and Liam Mailey have all given evidence at some point that up to five people had run into the flats before the person who was shot. In our view this was probably the case.

86.466 There are some suggestions that Kevin McElhinney was shot twice. Fr O’Keeffe and Barry Liddy both thought that when they first saw the youth crawling towards the Rossville Flats door he was already injured in his leg. Helen Johnston saw the youth jerk twice, once when he was between the rubble barricade and the doorway, and the second time when he was at the entrance to the flats. Peter Lancaster also saw the youth jerk. If he jerked, it does not necessarily follow that he had been shot. However, as we have noted above,1 the possibility exists that a bullet caused the abrasion on Kevin McElhinney’s left thigh.

1 Paragraph 86.398

86.467 Some witnesses (eg Gerard Grieve and Peter Lancaster) have said that after the casualty fell through the door a further shot or shots struck and splintered the doorpost at the entrance to the flats. Liam Mailey initially believed that this damage was done by the same shot as struck Kevin McElhinney, but accepted in his evidence to this Inquiry that this may have been a false assumption. Patrick Joseph Norris said that the shot had hit the door shortly before the crawling youth was hit. As noted above,1 other witnesses described a number of shots being fired at about the time Kevin McElhinney was shot. We have concluded that a shot probably did hit the door, though we are not certain whether or not this happened before, or as, Kevin McElhinney reached Block 1.

1 Paragraphs 86.421–424, 86.443–447 and 86.455–457

86.468 We return later in this report1 to the question as to whether the soldier or soldiers who fired at Kevin McElhinney did so in the mistaken belief that he was carrying a firearm and that, although he was crawling away, he would use the weapon once he had reached a position of cover.

1 Paragraphs 89.52–71

Where Kevin McElhinney was taken after he was shot

86.469 As we have already noted,1 Kevin McElhinney was carried from Block 1 of the Rossville Flats to an ambulance. We describe elsewhere in this report2 the circumstances in which this happened. The following photographs1 respectively show Kevin McElhinney lying in Block 1 before he was taken to the ambulance, and being carried from Block 1 to the ambulance.3

1 Paragraph 86.462

2 Paragraphs 124.13–20

3 Although Fulvio Grimaldi told us that he took the first of these photographs (Day 131/71) we are not certain about this, as it did not appear in the set of his photographs submitted to the Widgery Inquiry. The photograph appeared in his book Blood in the Street but he may have acquired it from someone else. The second photograph was taken by James Dakin of the Daily Express .

Alexander Nash

Biographical details

86.470 Alexander Nash was 52 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday. He lived in Dunree Gardens, Creggan, with his wife and ten of his 13 children. One of his sons had been married on the day before Bloody Sunday and the celebrations had continued late into the night. Alexander Nash’s wife had missed the wedding, as she had suffered a heart attack a few days earlier and was recovering in Altnagelvin Hospital. Alexander Nash was an unemployed painter.1 He died on 25th January 1999 before he had given any evidence to this Inquiry.

1 AL34.1; AN1.10; AN1.14; AN1.16; AN6.1; AN7.1; WT8.2; Day 149/59-60

Prior movements

86.471 In his statement to the RUC,1 Alexander Nash said that he left home at 11.00am and went to a public house, where he drank about seven or eight stout and two whiskeys . At about 2.15pm he left and took a taxi with a friend to the cemetery. He walked through the cemetery and joined the march near its front.

1 ED33.6

86.472 Alexander Nash gave broadly consistent accounts of his subsequent movements in his statement to the RUC,1in a statement witnessed by Eamonn Deane found in the collection held by the Irish Government,2and in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry,3which is a re-typed copy of a statement taken by the solicitors who acted for the surviving casualties in that Inquiry.4 He stated that he followed the march down William Street. At the junction with Chamberlain Street, he met his son John (Columba), who said that another of his sons, Alan, had returned from England to see his mother, and was at the Rossville Flats. Alexander Nash walked with his son John down Chamberlain Street to the car park of the Rossville Flats. He went out of the car park into the area around the shops (on the south side of Block 2 of the Rossville Flats) and then crossed Rossville Street into Glenfada Park.

1 ED33.6

2 AN1.14

3 AN1.10

4 AN1.16

86.473 In his statement to the RUC, and in his statement witnessed by Eamonn Deane,1 Alexander Nash recorded that he waited for ten or 12 minutes in the area of the Rossville Flats while one of his sons, John, looked for another of his sons, Alan, but that he then became fed up with waiting and moved across Rossville Street, across the rubble barricade and over near Glenfada Park . He then moved to the rubble barricade. He did not refer to waiting in the area of the Rossville Flats in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry.2

1 AN1.14

2 AN1.10

86.474 An annotated Sunday Times plan,1 which is dated 7th March 1972 and which, although it is not accompanied by any interview notes, appears to be an illustration of an account given by Alexander Nash on that date, indicates that instead of walking all the way down Chamberlain Street to reach the car park of the Rossville Flats, Alexander Nash walked on to the waste ground at Eden Place and then walked down the back of the houses on the western side of Chamberlain Street. The plan also indicates that he left the car park through the passage between Blocks 1 and 2 of the Rossville Flats.

1 AN1.13

86.475 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1 John Nash confirmed that he met his father at the corner of Chamberlain Street and William Street. It was his evidence that his father told him that his brother Alan had returned from England (rather than that he told his father). His father told him to go to the Rossville Flats, which he did, but he could not remember whether his father had come with him.

1 AN6.2

86.476 Fulvio Grimaldi’s photograph appears to show Alexander Nash standing on his own on the eastern side of Chamberlain Street near the junction with William Street at a time when the water cannon had been used and the area immediately in front of Barrier 14 was almost empty. On the basis of his accounts and the Sunday Times map, we are of the view that Alexander Nash left this area and went through the gap between Blocks 1 and 2 of the Rossville Flats and then across Rossville Street to the entrance to Glenfada Park North, from where he then went to the rubble barricade.

Medical and scientific evidence

86.477 Mr HM Bennett, a consultant surgeon at Altnagelvin Hospital, described the injury to Alexander Nash’s left arm in a letter to the RUC dated 7th February 1972.1 He reported that the wound was through and through passing from right to left . He considered that it had probably been caused by a low velocity projectile because there was relatively little muscle destruction. Mr Bennett also noted that there was a graze on the left side of the chest, ?? from rubber bullet . He gave no reason for his view that the graze might have been caused by a baton round. Mr Bennett described Alexander Nash’s injuries as relatively minor.

1 ED33.5

86.478 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan, the experts on pathology and ballistics engaged by this Inquiry, reviewed the medical records relating to the injuries sustained by those who received non-fatal gunshot wounds on Bloody Sunday. In their report on these cases,1 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan made the following comments about Alexander Nash’s injuries:

“[Alexander] Nash had a through and through wound of the left forearm. This was described by Mr Bennett in a letter to the RUC dated 7th February as passing from right to left , he also notes that the relatively little muscle destruction indicates that the wound was probably a low rather than a high velocity missile. On the evidence available no comment can be made concerning the nature of the projectile.

In addition to the bullet wound of the left arm there was a graze of the left chest (or left abdomen in the casualty notes), which may have been associated with the passage of the projectile through the left arm or it may have been due to a different projectile. Mr Bennett suggests that it may have been due to a plastic bullet but in the absence of any specific wound descriptions it is not possible to determine how he came to this conclusion.

1 E10.8

86.479 In written answers to questions submitted by the representatives of the family of Alexander Nash,1 Dr Shepherd and Mr O’Callaghan said that it was not possible to distinguish reliably between wounds caused by low velocity bullets and those caused by high velocity bullets in cases where the bullet had passed through only a few centimetres of tissue. The wound profile caused by a 7.62mm L2A2 bullet was well established. The first 10cm or so of the wound track showed little if any cavitation and minimal tissue destruction. The wound to Alexander Nash’s left arm could therefore have been caused either by a 7.62mm bullet or by a low velocity bullet. Dr Shepherd confirmed this view in his oral evidence to this Inquiry.2

1 E18.1.8-E18.1.10

2 Day 229/66-67; Day 229/98-99

86.480 In our view it is not possible from the medical and scientific evidence to determine whether Alexander Nash was shot by a high or low velocity bullet. As will be seen below,1 Alexander Nash told the Widgery Inquiry2 that he was struck on the inside of his raised left arm.

1 Paragraph 86.490 2WT8.4-5

Alexander Nash’s clothing

86.481 Alexander Nash was wearing a cloth cap, dark jacket and trousers and a white or pale-coloured shirt.1

1 P774

Accounts given by Alexander Nash

86.482 As we have already explained,1 Alexander Nash died before he could give evidence to this Inquiry. However, while he was in Altnagelvin Hospital he was interviewed by journalists2 and made a statement to the RUC3 and he subsequently made a further statement witnessed by Eamonn Deane that appears in the collection held by the Irish Government.4 An interview of Alexander Nash and other members of his family was published in Fulvio Grimaldi’s book Blood in the Street. Alexander Nash made a statement to the solicitors representing the surviving casualties at the Widgery Inquiry,5 a copy of which stood as his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry.6 He also gave oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.7 Alexander Nash was quoted in the Insight article published in the Sunday Times on 23rd April 1972.8 He had been interviewed by journalists of the Sunday Times Insight Team on 7th March 1972, although it appears that the annotated plan9 shown above10 is the only surviving record of that interview. Alexander Nash made a deposition to the coroner11 and gave oral evidence at the inquests held on 21st August 1973.12 In later years he gave accounts to his daughters Kate Lyons13 and Linda Roddy14 and to his son John Nash.15

1 Paragraph 86.470

2 L85.2; L94; L132; L134; L135; L136; L137; L139; L140; L142; L143; L144; L145; L151; L293; X1.4.7

3 ED33.6

4 AN1.14

5 AN1.16

6 AN1.10

7 WT8.2

8 L214

9 AN1.13

10 Paragraph 86.474

11 AN1.12

12 L220; L220.1

13 AL34.6

14 AR21.11-AR21.13

15 AN6.21

86.483 We examine the various accounts Alexander Nash gave in some detail, since although there is no doubt that Alexander Nash was injured while at the rubble barricade, there is controversy over whether his left arm was hit by an Army bullet or one fired by a paramilitary gunman. We consider that it is likely that a baton round caused the injury to his chest, as Mr Bennett thought might have been the case.

86.484 There is a film of Alexander Nash’s interview at Altnagelvin Hospital.1 The transcript of that interview2 is as follows:

I was going, you know the wee barricade at the flats, the wee small … I was walking up there you see to go home, and the shooting started you see. I was only going a few yards, I looked back and I seen three … so I had an idea … You know.

You saw three bodies?

Three bodies yeah. And I went out across and I put that hand up like that there and I got it right through the arm. And then I got this one and I dived, threw myself to the ground and three or four shots were fired at me, and my son was lying dead beside me and two others.

Did you see who fired these shots at you?

No, soldiers about 50 yards from me, they were this side and there were another crowd that side. Soldiers, definitely I know it.

Were you or your son at any time carrying a gun?

Not a chance. I wouldn’t know how to shoot it. Never in my life had a gun. Never.

Did you see any other men around who were carrying guns?

No, no guns, there weren’t a shot fired, … time.

You don’t think its possible at all that the bullets which hit you, which killed your son, could have come from anywhere else?

Impossible, impossible, where I got that shot. Impossible. He was shot there right there, and the other boys were shot there. I viewed them in the morgue you can see them, they couldn’t get at the back of you.

What happened to you after you were shot?

I lay there and a Saracen tank come up and these two big boys jump out, three more dead bodies there, picks them up, drags them over into the Saracen tank with them … one there, one on top and they dragged my son there.

1 Vid 4 12.14 2X1.4.7

86.485 In his statement to the RUC, Alexander Nash (after describing how he reached Glenfada Park) gave this account:1

I then heard shooting although I thought it was rubber bullets or gas. I turned around and looked towards the wee barricade in Rossville Street and saw my son William lying on his stomach with his head looking towards me. I also saw two other bodies lying one on either side of him, on their backs. I ran over to the barricade and I put my right hand up to stop the Army from shooting. The next thing I heard was more shots and I fell to the ground for safety. I then realised that I had been hit in the left arm and on my left side. I fell just beside my son and the Army tank then came and soldiers lifted the 3 bodies into the tank. They didn’t say anything to me or interfere with me. When the tank went away I got up and went around to the back of the Rossville high flats into a wee house there where the Knights of Malta men dressed my wound. They put me into their ambulance along with some other injured people and a dead body. They then brought us all up to Altnagelvin Hospital where I have been ever since. At the time I was shot I was not carrying any object.

1 ED33.6

86.486 In his statement witnessed by Eamonn Deane, which was made on or about 7th February 1972, Alexander Nash gave a somewhat similar account, though in this statement he recorded that he had put his left hand up to signal that the shooting should stop:1

I was shot in that arm and was hit in the ribs also. When I was hit I was fired at four or 5 times more. I dropped down beside Willie and the other 2 men. I put my hand on my son’s back and said Willie! His eyes were wide open but I knew straight away that he was dead and that the other 2 were dead too.

1 AN1.14

86.487 In the statement taken from Alexander Nash in 1972 by the solicitors who then acted for the surviving casualties, he gave the following account:1

Having seen my son, William, I put up my left hand as a signal and and walked out into Rossville Street. The shooting was still going on and I went over towards where my son was lying. As I approached him I knew he was dead. I went on over I; more shots were striking around me – I could heard the bullets hitting the stones and I deliberately dropped down flat on my face – this way I had the barricade of stones between me and the shooting soldiers. As I lay there a Saracen came up Rossville Street, and stopped at the barricade. I then sat with my back to the barricade. I saw two soldiers get out of the Saracen. I heard one of them shouting three more dead bodies. He and his companion then lifted the bodies, one at a time and threw them into the Saracen. They then drove away, and when the Saracen drove away I got up and walked over towards the shops at the rear of the high flats.

It was when I was sitting on the ground that I realised that I had been hit by a bullet or bullets, and when I got over to the shops I was taken to a First Aid post there.

1 AN1.16-17

86.488 As already noted,1 a copy of this statement2 was used as his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry.

1 Paragraph 86.482 2AN1.10

86.489 In the course of his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, Alexander Nash gave the following answers:1

Q. You emerged I suppose from Glenfada Park into Rossville Street?

A. I went in the middle like that, and put my hand up like that.

Q. Was there any shooting going on when you did that?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you see where the bullets were striking?

A. They were striking the concrete, the wee barricade, where I was.

Q. They must have been very close to you?

A. Yes. That is where I was hit, when I went down. When I put my hand up I got shot here, and I got one here somewhere in my side.

Q. Did you realise at the time you had been shot?

A. Yes, I had a good idea then.

Q. What did you do?

A. I got down. There is a wee barricade and I got hold of him, he was laying face down with his head that way. I couldn’t get him out.

Q. Was the shooting continuing when you got down on the ground?

A. I was there on the ground while there was shooting still going on. A Saracen tank came up, and it picked the three bodies up. There were two jumped out and they said Three more dead bodies.

Q. What about yourself?

A. They never touched me.

Q. What did you do?

A. I walked across to the far side. There was an ambulance there, and I went into a house there and he bandaged me up. I got on the ambulance to the hospital.

Q. You were taken to hospital?

A. Yes.

1 WT8.3

86.490 A little later he gave the following evidence:1

Q. Would you demonstrate what you did as you went out?

A. I got my hand and put it like that. I stood in the middle of the barricade to stop them, and I got it there and there.

Q. You stood at the barricade with your left hand raised and your fingers stretched out?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you did that, did the shooting continue?

A. Yes.

Q. Where were you struck?

A. There and there.

Q. You were struck on the inside of your left arm and on the left side?

A. Yes.

Q. You must have been struck by two bullets?

A. Yes, must have been.

Q. And at first you were not conscious I suppose of being struck?

A. No. I had my conscious about me, so I went down.

Q. Did the shooting stop?

A. Yes, the shooting stopped after that, but there were three for four bullets hit the concrete, the big stones. Then it stopped and the tank came up.

Q. You stood up and raised your left hand toward the soldiers?

A. Yes.

Q. When you did that could you see where the soldiers were?

A. Just at the bottom of the flats.

Q. Rossville Flats?

A. Yes. They were across the other wee place too.

Q. Was the firing coming from the Rossville Flats or the men on the other side?

A. It was coming that way.

Q. Towards you?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you carrying anything in your hand? Had you any weapon in your possession?

A. None at all.

Q. After you got down behind the barricade, what did you do?

A. I just lay there on top of him, put my hand on top of his back, and I just said Willie, that’s all.

1 WT8.4-5

86.491 Alexander Nash was asked by counsel for the Ministry of Defence about the direction of the firing that he had heard:1

Q. At that time when you went out with your hand up was there firing coming from the other direction – that is, from that way, down the corner of Rossville Flats (Indicating)?

A. There was firing there.

Q. There was firing coming from that direction?

A. Yes.

LORD WIDGERY: That would be from Joseph Place or somewhere around there?

A. No, no. At the end of the flats, near the top of the flats, away at the end of it.

Mr. GIBBENS: Can you follow this: There you found the barricade –

A. At the very end of the flats, down this way (Indicating).

Q. There was some Army up there?

A. Yes – at the little flats, here.

Q. What I was asking – you have misunderstood me – is this: There was firing coming from that direction up towards the barricade, was there not? Did you hear pistol shots being fired from there?

A. No.

1 WT8.8

86.492 Later in his evidence he gave these answers:1

Q. Just before going back to Glenfada Park to pick up your son, had you heard shooting coming from that direction, that is to say, the bottom of No. 1 block, up there behind the barrier? I am asking you about shooting against the soldiers.

A. No.

Q. Had you heard shooting coming out of Glenfada Park?

A. No.

1 WT8.9

86.493 Alexander Nash gave a general account of the circumstances of his shooting in his deposition and oral evidence to the coroner inquiring into the death of William Nash and Michael McDaid,1but neither added anything to, nor said anything inconsistent with, the accounts we have already considered. The same is the case with the interview with Alexander Nash and other members of his family that appeared in Fulvio Grimaldi’s book Blood in the Street.

1 AN1.12; L220; L221

86.494 We return to the Sunday Times Insight article1later in this chapter.

1 L214

86.495 Kate Lyons was one of Alexander Nash’s daughters. She told us in her written statement to this Inquiry1that her father had told her that he did not realise that he had been shot until after the event. She also stated:

My father described lying next to Willie and being approached by a soldier, who had a blackened face and was aged about 25–30, coming towards the Rubble Barricade from the north of Rossville Street. My father thought that the soldier was coming to finish him off. My father believed that this was the same soldier who had shot him in the first place. The soldier told him that he would get help over there. My father did not know where over there meant, but the soldier may have meant a first aid post.

1 AL34.6

86.496 Kate Lyons also told us:1

My father went to the Widgery Inquiry but I cannot remember if he was asked to give evidence. When he returned, he raged about the way that the Inquiry had been conducted. He said that they painted Willie as a criminal on the basis that he had a police record. Lord Widgery implied that Willie had been a gunman. My father used to say, IRA m’shite. There was no way that Willie was ever a gunman.

1 AL34.4

86.497 Linda Roddy (another daughter) gave this account in her written statement to this Inquiry of what she recalled her father telling her about the circumstances in which he was shot:1

My father told me that he rushed to Willie’s side, in between the three bodies as Willie lay there dying. Willie screamed at my father to help him. On many occasions my father told me that, had there been a gun there, he would have used it to protect himself and Willie (any parent’s instinct would be to protect their young), but there was no gun there. Nor were there any other bombs or weapons.

My father stood up and started waving his hands about to get help, shouting help me, help me, this is my son. At this point a soldier, who my father described as an officer, and who was standing north of the rubble barricade, fired a shot at my father with a hand pistol, which hit my father in the arm. My father kept on screaming that my brother and the others needed help. My father then felt a second impact in his side and fell to the ground. When I started looking into the events of Bloody Sunday, I learnt that it was suggested that my father had been shot by a gunman from the Rossville Flats, as the shot that injured him was probably a low-velocity shot. I asked him about it. His reply was to the point: IRA gunman, me shite. He added that, unless the officer who shot him was also an IRA gunman, it was out of the question. He told me that, as he was facing north up Rossville Street behind the rubble barricade, trying to get help for my brother, all the bullets he could feel coming past were coming towards him (from north to south).

My father went on to say that the officer who had shot him kept coming forward (south) towards him. At this point, my father stood up. He thought the officer was coming forward to finish him off. My father said over and over that he could not understand why the officer did not finish him off. He came to the conclusion that the officer’s conscience had gotten to him. As the officer reached my father, he removed his hat and my father asked him for help. The officer pointed my father in the direction of the telephone kiosk at the southern gable end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. The officer then called other soldiers over to the bodies. My father believed the officer and started walking south towards the kiosk to get help. He then told me that he remembers very little else after that. He can remember seeing Willie’s body being dragged into the Saracen but he cannot recall whether he was still at the rubble barricade at that stage or at the southern gable end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

1 AR21.12

86.498 Later in this report1we consider the circumstances in which soldiers came forward with an APC to collect the bodies at the rubble barricade. Although we do not doubt that Alexander Nash told his daughters that it was the officer who came forward who had shot him, and that this soldier was coming forward to finish him off (and gave much the same account in his interview with Jimmy McGovern2), we are sure that he was mistaken about this. In his second RMP statement3and in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry4Lieutenant N described going with other soldiers to the rubble barricade, finding a man of about 60 years who was mumbling about being hurt in the shoulder, and directing him to a first aid man. We are sure that Lieutenant N was not responsible for the injury to Alexander Nash, nor went forward for any purpose other than to collect the bodies at the rubble barricade.

1 Paragraphs 122.1–128

2 AN6.21

3 B384

4 B400

Where Alexander Nash was when he was shot

86.499 There is no doubt that Alexander Nash (who consistently said so) was shot in the left arm after he had gone out to his son William Nash, who was lying at the rubble barricade.

When Alexander Nash was shot and what he was doing when he was shot

86.500 Again from his own account there is no doubt that Alexander Nash was shot after the shooting of his son William, John Young and Michael McDaid. It is not clear from the accounts Alexander Nash gave how long he was at the rubble barricade before he was shot, but we have no doubt, from his accounts alone, that he was doing nothing that could have justified him being shot or that could have led anyone to believe, albeit mistakenly, that he was a gunman or bomber. He was, in our view, simply waving for help. In our view he was shot after Kevin McElhinney.

86.501 We now turn to consider the other evidence relating to these aspects of the shooting of Alexander Nash. We do so in some detail, as much of this evidence is relevant to the question whether he was shot by an Army bullet or one fired by a paramilitary gunman. We consider that question below.1

1 Paragraphs 86.560–607

Charles McDaid

86.502 In his evidence to this Inquiry, Charles McDaid identified himself in one of Liam Mailey’s photographs as one of the group of people surrounding the body of Michael Kelly behind the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North.1

1 AM161.6; Day 60/176

86.503 In the course of his oral evidence to this Inquiry he gave the following evidence:1

Q. You, in direct response to a question from Mr Clarke, indicated that on this particular occasion you did not hear any firing from behind the barricades towards the north end of Rossville Street?

A. That is right.

Q. Indeed, in response to a series of questions from Mr Harvey, you confirmed that at no stage in or around the barricade you observed any person in possession of a firearm, nail bomb or petrol bomb?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. If one more especially focuses attention on the doorway of block 1, can you confirm, or can you say whether or not you recall anything of a person in that location with a firearm, nail bomb or petrol bomb?

A. I cannot recollect seeing anybody with anything in their hands.

Q. If I could call up, please, AM161.62 and more especially if we could have highlighted paragraph 39. Mr Clarke has already quoted that – it is a short paragraph, if you bear with me. You say:

I also saw one man at the rubble barricade with a raised hand which then fell back to the ground.

When you say, which then fell back to the ground , do you remember specifically to his hand?

A. To his hand.3

Q. You then, in the subsequent paragraph, if one could highlight paragraph 40, please. At that particular stage you say:

There were still shots being fired from the northern end of Rossville Street towards the rubble barricade at this stage.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it your recollection at this time, Mr McDaid, that at that point in time when this gentleman’s hand fell to the ground, the only shooting that you were aware of was coming from the northern end of Rossville Street?

A. Yes.

1 Day 60/178-179

2 AM161.6

3 There is no audio record of this part of the transcript, as the cassette tapes were being changed at this point. The transcript of this question and answer do not make sense. We do not recall what was in fact said.

86.504 Though it is not perhaps entirely clear, we consider that Alexander Nash was the man described by Charles McDaid.

John Duffy

86.505 John Duffy (whose father was Patrick Barman Duffy, to whom we have referred when considering the events of Sector 21) told us that he was observing events from a stairwell in the northern block of Joseph Place.2 His recollection was that someone he afterwards learned was Alexander Nash walked out of Glenfada Park North. He told us that this man walked out with his hands up, and then there was a lot of shooting and he fell. He recalled that he saw Alexander Nash walk out side on to Rossville Street with his hands up, when he was shot. He described the shots he had heard as to him coming from up Rossville Street .3

1 Chapter 29

2 Day 80/138; AD160.15

3 Day 80/126; Day 80/140-142; Day 80/152-155

86.506 John Duffy’s recollection was that Alexander Nash was shot as he went out from Glenfada Park North. He gave this answer during the course of his oral evidence to this Inquiry:1

Q. Again he fell, could you tell whether it was on to his front or his back or whatever?

A. From what I remember, I think, at shots – as he came walking out, there was a lot of shots and he kind of fell, fell over, because I was getting pulled in. Where I was at the time, I was getting pulled in and I would go out again, you know what I mean, I think he slumped over.

1 Day 80/152-153

Elizabeth Dunleavy

86.507 In her NICRA statement Elizabeth Dunleavy described seeing events in the car park of the Rossville Flats from her flat in Block 1 of those flats.1 In this statement she made no mention of witnessing events in Rossville Street, but in her written evidence to this Inquiry she told us that after seeing what happened in the car park, she looked from the sitting room window into Rossville Street and saw three bodies on the rubble barricade. Her statement continued:2

I saw an older man approach the three bodies from the south end of Rossville Street (although I do not know from where he came). This man knelt down in the street on one knee, and raised his hand. I think he was signalling to the soldiers not to shoot. His arm then went limp and fell by his side. I assume that he was shot in the arm but I did not hear a shot.

1 AD169.5

2 AD169.2-3

86.508 In her oral evidence to this Inquiry, Elizabeth Dunleavy told us that when the man put his hand up he was facing down Rossville Street towards where the soldiers were”.1

1 Day 83/142

86.509 In our view Alexander Nash was the older man described by Elizabeth Dunleavy.

John McCrudden

86.510 At the time of Bloody Sunday, John McCrudden was 12 years old. He observed events from his home, which was 12 Garvan Place, a maisonette on the second and third floors of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. Later in this report1 we consider his evidence relating to shots fired by soldiers at a window of his home. We were impressed by this witness. We identify 12 Garvan Place in the following photograph.

1 Paragraphs 123.212–278

86.511 In his NICRA statement,1 after describing what he had seen happen in the Rossville Flats car park, John McCrudden recorded that he had then looked out of the front windows and seen three men falling in Glenfada Park. He continued:

I looked at the barricade below the window and I saw 4 men and three were lying not moving at all. The 4th man was waving his arms saying There are three bodies. The army then fired at him.

Then a Saracen came up to the barricade. About six soldiers jumped out and they just grabbed the three men and threw them into the Saracen.

1 AM152.10

86.512 In his written evidence to this Inquiry, John McCrudden gave the following account:1

I looked out from the living room window and down at the Rubble Barricade that stretched across William Street. I could still hear gunfire. As I looked from the window the Barricade was slightly to my right (to the north). I saw two fellas lying on the ground on the south side of the Barricade. I cannot remember how they were lying or describe them any further, but they were not moving and I assumed they had been shot. There was an elderly man with them. I could tell he was elderly because he had grey hair and was wearing a cap. He crouched down and I got the impression that he was trying to move them. He was waving at someone and shouting for them to come and help. The man kept his head down, but moved his hand above the Barricade. I saw lumps fly up from the Barricade near to his hand and generally I saw lumps and dust fly from the Barricade due to shots being fired at it. During all this time the shooting that had started when I saw the army vehicles move in continued with the same intensity.

1 AM152.3-4

86.513 During his oral evidence to this Inquiry there was this exchange:1

MR MANSFIELD … Just a couple of questions first of all on this: dealing with the older man who you originally described as wearing a cap, that man; when you were looking out of your window, which way was that older man facing as he was on the barricade, can you remember or not? You can either do it with reference to the photograph, in other words, looking at this photograph was he facing up Rossville Street, away from the barricade, or was he facing some other way?

A. He would have been facing more towards William Street.

Q. Facing towards William Street. And the shots that you either – you heard shots, did you, and you saw the effect of the shots on the rubble barricade because bits were flying up?

A. Yeah.

Q. From which direction were the shots coming?

A. From William Street.

Q. Again, still looking at this photograph, the window from which you were looking, is it right that it is between this entrance to the block of flats in which yours was and the rubble barricade?

A. That is correct, yeah.

1 Day 95/132-133

86.514 In our view Alexander Nash was the elderly man described by John McCrudden.

86.515 The following photograph is the one to which John McCrudden was referred in this passage and was one that he had previously marked to show where he recalled seeing lumps of concrete fly up from the rubble barricade.1

1 AM152.13; Day 95/109-110

Kevin McGonagle

86.516 At the time of Bloody Sunday, Kevin McGonagle was a 24-year-old schoolteacher. In a letter that he wrote to the Widgery Inquiry dated 1st March 1972, he gave this account of what he saw from a house in Joseph Place:1

I then stood up and looked out of the window. I saw two youths lying on the near side of the rubble barricade in front of the large flats. An old man was kneeling beside them with his hands in the air, gesturing for aid. He was facing the Little James Street direction of Rossville Street. As his hands were in the air, obviously beckoning help, there was three loud cracks and I saw dust rising of[f] a sloping paving stone in front of the old man. In my opinion it was a bullet fired from the Rossville Street (Little James Street direction) area. The puff of dust on the paving stone was instantaneous with the noise of the cracks, which, in my opinion was rifle fire. The man then fell.

1 AM254.19-20

86.517 John Barry of the Sunday Times Insight Team interviewed Kevin McGonagle on 10th March 1972.1 In this interview Kevin McGonagle gave a similar but more detailed account:

I watched out of the window. And I could see the barricade, not all of it, but the left half. I could see one young fellow lying most of him on the left-hand pavement, but with his head almost off the kerb. The other was lying more to the centre, with his head towards the barricade and his feet towards the corner gable of Abbey Park.2 Round the gable of Abbey Park a lot of people were gathered. And I saw the left-hand young fellow crawl for a bit, about two feet, towards the other guy. He was quite flat, never raising any part of his body even his head, just pushing himself. Then he stopped and he didnt move again. I just assumed they had been the last over the barricade and were trying to take cover from the shooting. Perhaps it didnt cover them enough.

There were some more loud cracks, and I moved away from that corner over to the left, so I didn’t have a continuous view. I didnt see the man come out to the two lads. I warned the people not to be looking out. When I looked out again, I saw a man out behind the barricade, an oldish sort of man, with a long tweedy sort of overcoat on. He was kneeling there. Just between the two lads, looking down on them, with his back up the road towards me. He was looking down at the two fellows and then he lifted his hands in the air, his elbows bent, his bare hands up. I could see his palms, and he had nothing in them. He was motioning to someone out of my sight – beckoning them up for aid, slowly waving his hands back towards his face. I immediately assumed that the two fellows were dead or unconscious, something wrong them anyway. And he somehow looked really frightened, pretty frightened looking, beckoning them towards him. Then I heard two or three cracks. And in front of the man on the barricade, a paving stone sloping down towards the Army, I saw a puff of smoke rising from this. And the man fell backwards. I couldnt see whether he was getting down for cover or whether he was hit. It looked to me though as if he had a violent reaction, a sort of tremor, and he fell.3 I went back from the window again, too, and I was afraid of being shot. I took it for granted it was the Army shooting. And I knew that glass or wood or even concrete wouldnt protect you.

1 AM254.22.3

2 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Kevin McGonagle explained that here and in the next sentence he had meant Glenfada Park (Day 128/190-191).

3 There was the following manuscript addition to this sentence: “I surmised he had been hit by something. ”

86.518 Kevin McGonagle gave a consistent account in his written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.1 He told us that he recalled seeing the oldish man (who in our view was undoubtedly Alexander Nash) facing north when shots struck the rubble barricade.2

1 AM254.11; Day 128/189-191; Day 128/193-197;
Day 128/210-213

2 Day 128/213

Marie Lynch

86.519 In her NICRA statement1 Marie Lynch described looking from the front window of 6 Garvan Place in Block 1 of the Rossville Flats and seeing a man lying behind the rubble barricade and another man leaning over him. She continued: The man called up to me for help and an ambulance. The man then put his hand up to the army and the army fired at him but the bullet hit the barricade. In her written statement to this Inquiry, Marie Lynch told us that from what she had heard later she thought the man was called Nash.2In our view this man was Alexander Nash.

1 AL27.5

2 AL27.1-2

Frank Lawton

86.520 As we have noted earlier in this report,1 Frank Lawton made a NICRA statement of which two typescript versions exist.2 The texts of the two versions of this statement are substantially identical. Frank Lawton then made a further statement, which was witnessed by a Londonderry solicitor.3 This statement is undated but was clearly made in 1972. In large part it reproduces the content of the NICRA statement but it contains some additional material. He also made a written statement for the Widgery Inquiry4 and gave oral evidence to that Inquiry. He gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.

1 Paragraph 58.30

2 AL6.19-20; AL6.27

3 AL6.29

4 AL6.21

86.521 Frank Lawton described observing events from his mother-in-law’s flat (11 Mura Place) in Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. In his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, he said that he was on the fifth floor.1In his evidence to this Inquiry he agreed that the yellow arrow on the following photograph (which was taken in 1986 when Block 1 was being demolished) marked about where he remembered the flat to be.2

1 WT6.78

2 Day 389/93; AL6.33

86.522 In 1972 Frank Lawton gave accounts of what he had seen when looking into the Rossville Flats car park. He then recorded that he had gone to the front of the building. In his NICRA statement he described seeing an elderly man who was lying beside three shot men at the rubble barricade. He continued:1

He appeared to be getting them closer to the barricade for shelter. None of these three men were able to assist themselves. The elderly man was later identified to me as Mr Darnion (this will have to be verified). I saw him look over the barricade and raise his hand, a shot struck the slab of concrete beside him and passed on to the area of ‘Free Derry Corner’. He ducked then again put his hand up. By this time the fire had stopped.

1 AL6.20

86.523 A similar account appears in the other version of Frank Lawton’s NICRA statement and the statement witnessed by the Londonderry solicitor.1

1 AL6.27-28; AL6.30

86.524 We have no doubt that the elderly man was Alexander Nash and that Frank Lawton had been misinformed of his identity.

86.525 Frank Lawton’s written statement1for and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry were consistent with his previous accounts relating to the elderly man, although in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry he described seeing perhaps two or three shots hitting the concrete at the rubble barricade.2He also told the Widgery Inquiry that he had heard no sound of shooting that might have come from the rubble barricade and had seen no signs of weapons there.3

1 AL6.21

2 WT6.79; WT6.81

3 WT6.80

86.526 In an interview with Tony Stark of Praxis Films Ltd, Frank Lawton described the flat from which he was watching as directly over the rubble barricade.1

1 O8.4

86.527 Frank Lawton also gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. In relation to Alexander Nash, he gave the following account in his written statement:1

A man, who I later found out to be Alexander Nash, walked briskly or ran, crouching as he did so, towards the three bodies on the Rubble Barricade. I am not certain exactly where Mr Nash came from but it seemed to me that he came from opposite the front entrance of Rossville Flats (that is from the western side of Rossville Street). He was wearing a light coloured tweed overcoat (or perhaps a raincoat) and a flat cap. As he ran he waved both arms in the air. When he reached the Rubble Barricade, he knelt down between the bodies at points H and J. He reached over to all three bodies, one on his left and two on his right, and seemingly tried to pull them closer towards himself. Intermittently, he would raise his hands – his right if he was pulling the body on his left and vice versa – beckoning to the soldiers, it seemed to me, either to stop shooting or for help. The shooting did not cease. On the contrary, there was lead flying everywhere and I saw bullets strike the Rubble Barricade in front of where Mr Nash was kneeling. It seemed to me that the shots were fired at him and in response to his raising his hands or head above the height of the Rubble Barricade. Every time Mr Nash stuck his head up he was shot at. The army have said that there were people shooting at them from the Rubble Barricade and that they returned fire. Mr Nash however was not armed and posed no threat to the soldiers. All the bullets Mr Nash however was not armed and posed no threat to the soldiers. All the bullets I saw hit the Rubble Barricade did so on its north side and were travelling in the direction of Free Derry Corner. I did not see any bullets hit the south side of the

Rubble Barricade. After the shooting had ended, I went down to the Rubble Barricade and saw a concrete block with about three or four bullet tracks on it. The tracks, which looked like they had been etched in by a grindstone, were about four or five inches long. In my opinion, the angle of the tracks were consistent with the shots I heard fired from the direction of William Street, the soldiers I had seen around Kells Walk and the bullets I had seen ricocheting off the Rubble Barricade.

1 AL6.9-10

86.528 Frank Lawton marked the points H and J on a map, as denoting positions near the centre of the rubble barricade.1

1 AL6.26

86.529 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Frank Lawton gave similar evidence in respect of Alexander Nash. He told us that when he saw Alexander Nash come out there were only the three bodies at the rubble barricade and that he saw no-one else come out afterwards.1Asked how many shots he had seen directed at Alexander Nash while he was looking at him, he replied I think there was probably three or four and later probably … about two to three .2He also told us that he did not recall having heard any low velocity shots in the area while he was watching Alexander Nash (from behind the closed window)3or in the period that followed.4He said that from his viewpoint he could see the whole of the rubble barricade, but would not have been able to see the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats unless he had leaned out of the window, which he did not do.5

1 Day 389/120

2 Day 389/118; Day 389/139-140; Day 389/145-147

3 Day 389/119

4 Day 389/129

5 Day 389/118-119

Fr Terence O’Keeffe

86.530 Fr O’Keeffe’s evidence to the Widgery Inquiry and to this Inquiry was that he saw a man raising his arm while holding a body at the rubble barricade at a time when he and Fr Bradley were attending to Michael Kelly. His evidence to the Widgery Inquiry indicated that he saw this man before Fr Bradley began to consider moving out to the barricade himself. Fr O’Keeffe saw the man fall and assumed that he had been shot but, as he said to this Inquiry, he could not be sure that he had actually seen the moment at which the man was shot. Fr O’Keeffe also said that he saw a soldier at the north-western corner of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats at this time. Fr O’Keeffe saw this soldier aiming, but could not be certain that he saw him fire.1

1 H21.22; WT5.7-8; H21.46-47; Day 127/110-112

86.531 We accept, as Fr O’Keeffe said in his oral evidence to this Inquiry,1that the man in question was Alexander Nash.

1 Day 127/150

Fr Denis Bradley

86.532 The transcript of the account given by Fr Bradley to the Sunday Times Insight Team in 1972,1 and his evidence to this Inquiry,2 also indicate that by the time he contemplated moving out to the casualties at the rubble barricade Alexander Nash was already with the body of his son, and had his arm in the air. Fr Bradley did not mention seeing Alexander Nash in this position in his evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, but he did mention seeing four bodies at the barricade at this time.3

1 H1.31

2 H1.10; Day 140/117-118

3 H1.41; WT4.36-37

George Downey

86.533 George Downey said to this Inquiry that it was before he carried Michael Kelly away from the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North that he saw Alexander Nash moving to the rubble barricade and waving his arm. He believed that Alexander Nash’s arm fell within a couple of seconds, but it is not clear whether Alexander Nash had been shot at this point.1

1 AD134.3-4; Day 123/29-31; Day 123/71-72; AD134.16

Helen Johnston and Margaret Johnston

86.534 In her written statement to this Inquiry,1 Helen Johnston told us that she now knew that Alexander Nash had been shot but did not know this when she saw him. In her oral evidence to this Inquiry2 she said that he was shot, but when asked whether she saw him being shot she said No, I just saw him going down . Margaret Johnston recorded in her written statement to this Inquiry3 that Alexander Nash looked as if he had stumbled and tripped. She did not know what had happened to him but just knew he couldn’t get himself up . In her oral evidence to this Inquiry,4 she said that Alexander Nash had appeared unable to stand up and that there had appeared to be something wrong with him .

1 AJ11.3

2 Day 228/38

3 AJ13.3

4 Day 228/88-89

86.535 As we have explained earlier in this report1 when discussing when Kevin McElhinney was shot, Helen Johnston and Margaret Johnston recorded in their joint NICRA statement2 that they saw an elderly man at the rubble barricade. In our view this man was Alexander Nash. However, we are not persuaded by their accounts that Alexander Nash was shot before Kevin McElhinney. As we have already observed,3 we are uncertain whether or not this was the case.

1 Paragraph 86.411

2 AJ11.1

3 Paragraph 86.412

Jack Nash

86.536 Jack Nash, who was at the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, told us that he saw his relation Alexander Nash at the rubble barricade shortly after having helped to carry Michael Kelly to the south end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North. He recalled that Alexander Nash had his right arm in the air and was talking, but he could not hear what he was saying as there was still shooting going on at the time.1

1 AN27.3; Day 137/17-19

Nola McSwine

86.537 Nola McSwine (now McCullagh) was watching events from a flat in Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. In her NICRA statement she said that she saw an elderly man lying next to three bodies at the rubble barricade. He got up and shook them, and realised that they were dead. The man then raised his arm, but they (presumably the soldiers to the north) shot him. The man raised his other arm and was shot again, this time falling to the ground.1 Nola McSwine’s evidence to this Inquiry was that she saw an elderly man inspect each of the bodies, waving his arm as he did so. She then saw a soldier in Rossville Street approximately level with the north end of the eastern block of Glenfada Park North, who had one knee on the ground, fire his rifle towards, she assumed, the elderly man. Nola McSwine said that she knew that the soldier had fired as she saw his body jerk. As he fired the rifle, the elderly man fell. She believed that the man then got up and waved his other arm, at which point she saw the same soldier fire again and again.2

1 AM157.9

2 AM157.4; Day 136/111-112; Day 136/129-134

86.538 We are sure that the elderly man described by Nola McSwine was Alexander Nash.

Leo Friel

86.539 Leo Friel recorded in his NICRA statement, and told us in his evidence to this Inquiry, that from the area north of Free Derry Corner he saw a man at the rubble barricade get to his feet and raise his hands during a lull after the initial burst of gunfire in the Rossville Street area; and then heard further shooting, and saw the man fall. According to his NICRA statement he knew that this man had been shot. In his evidence to this Inquiry he said that before the man fell he saw his right arm wobble and bend in the middle. There was another lull in firing after this incident, and then shooting commenced again.1 Leo Friel said in his oral evidence to this Inquiry2 that he later learned that the man’s surname was Nash. He thought that he had been told that his first name was William but he was not sure of this. The man had been in his forties or possibly older. We are sure that the man Leo Friel observed was Alexander Nash.

1 AF35.1; AF35.4; Day 142/132-139

2 Day 142/136-137

Celine Dunleavy

86.540 Celine Dunleavy recorded in her NICRA statement, and told us in her evidence to this Inquiry, that from a window of a flat in Block 1 of the Rossville Flats she saw an elderly man at the rubble barricade shouting out to the soldiers that they should come and see what they had done to his son. In her evidence to this Inquiry she said that he raised his hand and a single shot rang out. She did not see who fired it, but from the way in which his hand fell she assumed that the shot came from the north. In her NICRA statement she recorded that the soldiers fired at the old man calmly, but her recollection to this Inquiry was that she could only hear the shot.1 We are sure that the man Celine Dunleavy observed was Alexander Nash.

1 AD168.5; AD168.2; Day 132/162-163

Mary McCann

86.541 Celine Dunleavy’s cousin, Mary McCann, was with her at this time. She recorded in her NICRA statement that she saw an elderly man lying with the bodies at the barricade, apparently shortly after she had heard the first live rounds fired. Mary McCann saw this man kneel, and wave his hand, during a lull in firing. A live round was fired at him, but it hit the stones in front of him. The man took cover, but subsequently knelt up again and shouted to the soldiers to come and see what they had done to his son.1 Mary McCann gave a similar account to this Inquiry, and said that she could not see the soldiers who fired, but assumed that they were positioned further north along Rossville Street. Mary McCann said that she later recognised the man whom she had seen as Alexander Nash.2

1 AM78.4

2 AM78.1-2; Day 133/64-65

Other civilian witnesses

86.542 We have examined the evidence of Patrick Heaney,1Letty Donnelly,2Kathleen Carlin (now Kathleen Hutton),3 RM 24and Patrick McGinley,5but in our view these witnesses provided no additional assistance on the matter under discussion.

1 AH107.3

2 AD125.9; Day 124/130-133; AD125.16; Day 124/136-137

3 AH97.2; X2.14.16-17; Day 189/57-60; Day 189/75-77

4 AK42.8; Day 424/37-42

5 AM241.4; Day 425/129-132

Captain 021

86.543 Captain 021 was an officer of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) attached to 22 Lt AD Regt in January 1972. He was at Echo Observation Post (OP) (on the roof of the Embassy Ballroom) for most of the afternoon of Bloody Sunday. In his RMP statement he recorded that before a shot was fired past his position, followed by further incoming fire and then return fire from paratroopers at Kells Walk, an old man who had been behind the barricade was struck by a rubber bullet which caused him to fall behind the barricade near the centre and that When the shooting stopped, the old man who had been struck by a rubber bullet, rose to a sitting position and waved to the troops, to come forward to him ”, which they eventually did in an APC. Captain 021 then described the old man going off in the direction of the Glenfada flats .1

1 B1503-1504

86.544 According to Captain 021’s RMP statement, the old man was hit by a baton round before there was any firing; and remained there until an APC came forward and collected three bodies at the rubble barricade. There is, as we have described above,1 abundant evidence to show that Alexander Nash did not reach the rubble barricade until after his son William, John Young and Michael McDaid had been shot there. Captain 021’s description of an old man waving to the troops to come forward in our view clearly refers to Alexander Nash; but in our view Captain 021 was mistaken in his account of this man being hit by a baton round while at the rubble barricade and before any firing, and in describing him as going off in the direction of Glenfada Park. It is possible that Captain 021 did see Alexander Nash hit by a baton round at a later stage, when the latter had got to the rubble barricade; or saw him hit there but mistakenly thought that this was by a baton round. However, we are not at all certain about this, because there are other difficulties with Captain 021’s RMP statement.

1 Paragraphs 86.482–500, 86.507–509 and 86.520–529

86.545 Captain 021 described seeing three bodies being removed from behind the rubble barricade and taken behind Glenfada Park North, as well as a further three bodies later being loaded onto the APC which had come forward. We are sure that only Michael Kelly was carried from the rubble barricade into the entrance to Glenfada Park North; and that Alexander Nash had not gone out to the rubble barricade until after all four casualties had been shot at the rubble barricade. When describing the shooting by soldiers at Kells Walk, Captain 021 asserted that the men who remained at the barricade were completely covered by the concrete which is about 3 feet in thickness and made up of slabs of concrete and rubble and in my opinion these men could not have been shot by the Paratrooper1as they were concealed from my position which is some 60 to 70 feet above the position occupied by the troops”. However, there is no doubt that Michael Kelly, William Nash, John Young and Michael McDaid were shot at the rubble barricade.

1 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Captain 021 agreed that this should have read “Paratroopers ” (Day 317/119).

86.546 Captain 021 made no mention of the shooting of Hugh Gilmour or Kevin McElhinney.

86.547 Captain 021 made a written statement for the Widgery Inquiry.1

1 B1507

86.548 Later in this report1 we consider Captain 021’s account of incoming fire.

1 Paragraphs 151.36–47

86.549 Captain 021 gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. In his written statement to this Inquiry, Captain 021 told us that he now had no memory of the old man; and he also told us that he was not happy that his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry reflected accurately his recollection of events.1

1 B1509.007

86.550 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Captain 021 told us that he was the intelligence officer of 22 Lt AD Regt.1

1 Day 317/81-82

86.551 We have considered the accounts given by Captain 021 in 1972 as well as his written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. We have come to the conclusion that it would be unwise to rely upon his accounts in seeking to establish the circumstances in which Alexander Nash came to be injured.

Consideration of the foregoing evidence

86.552 The evidence we have considered above1 is not sufficient to enable us to say precisely when Alexander Nash was shot. However, in our view the weight of the evidence shows that this probably happened a little time after he had reached his son. We are of the view that after he had been shot, Alexander Nash, who had been waving before, probably waved again; and that, after that, an APC came forward and soldiers collected the bodies of the three young men lying at the rubble barricade. On the basis of his own account, and the medical evidence, we consider it probable that in addition to being shot, Alexander Nash was also struck by a baton round while he was at the rubble barricade.

1 Paragraphs 86.500–551

86.553 As we have already stated,1 we are sure that Alexander Nash was doing nothing that could have led anyone to believe, albeit mistakenly, that he was posing any threat that justified him being shot. It is our view that when he was shot he was waving his left arm to attract attention.

1 Paragraph 86.500

86.554 There is nothing in the civilian evidence to suggest that during the time Alexander Nash was at the rubble barricade, anything was happening that might have caused any of the soldiers to believe that there was any form of activity there hostile to them. On the contrary, there is a substantial body of civilian evidence to the effect that there was no such activity; and that all that was happening at the rubble barricade was Alexander Nash waving for help. We accept that evidence.

86.555 It is convenient at this point to refer to the ABC footage which shows Army vehicles, including the Support Company command vehicle and the Ferret scout car, gathered to the north of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, as well as the vehicles of Anti-Tank Platoon on the western side of Rossville Street south of Kells Walk.1

1 Vid 48 10.36

86.556 In view of the presence of these vehicles, it is clear that this footage was shot after Jeffrey Morris’s photograph of Colonel Derek Wilford and members of Composite Platoon at the walls of the low ramp at the south end of Kells Walk, which we have shown earlier in this chapter.1 Alexander Nash cannot be seen in that photograph, but in view of the evidence we have considered above, he was either out of sight behind the rubble barricade at this time, or just out of the photograph to the left.

1 Paragraph 86.430

86.557 A figure that we have no doubt was Alexander Nash can be seen in the ABC footage. The following are two stills from that footage, in chronological order. The first shows Alexander Nash behind what appears to be a lump of concrete forming part of the rubble barricade; and the second shows him in the same position but with an arm in the air.1

1 E30.4; E30.10

86.558 Paul Smith of the Forensic Science Service told us that from the footage he was unable to comment on the direction in which Alexander Nash was facing, as no facial features were visible, nor could the fingers or thumb be seen that might have shown which arm was being raised.1 Barry Fox gave written evidence to this Inquiry,2 but was unable to help us fix with any precision when he shot the footage. Notwithstanding this, in view of the position of the vehicles and the evidence we have considered above,3 we have concluded that the footage is likely to have been shot at a stage after Alexander Nash was injured, when he was waving again. We have also concluded, from the same evidence, that Alexander Nash was facing the camera (ie looking northwards) when he was filmed.

1 E30.1

2 M115.1

3 Paragraphs 86.500–551

What happened to Alexander Nash after he was shot

86.559 After the bodies had been collected from the rubble barricade, Alexander Nash moved to the south end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. He can be seen in the following photograph taken by Fulvio Grimaldi. Alexander Nash recorded in his written statement for the Widgery Inquiry that when he went over to the shops (presumably those on the south side of Block 2 of the Rossville Flats) he was taken to a first aid post (which according to his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry was in a house), and then to an ambulance.1According to the statement he made to the RUC2he was treated in a wee house where the Knights of Malta men dressed my wound . The Order of Malta Ambulance Corps volunteers who treated Alexander Nash were James Norris and Noel McLoone, who did so in a house in Joseph Place.3As appears later in this report,4Alexander Nash was taken to Altnagelvin Hospital in the same ambulance that carried Hugh Gilmour, Patrick Doherty (shot in Sector 5), and Michael Bradley and Patrick McDaid (injured in Sector 2).

1 AN1.10-11; WT8.3

2 ED33.6

3 AN20.21-22; AM359.22

4 Paragraphs 124.3–9

Whether a soldier or a paramilitary gunman shot Alexander Nash

86.560 It will have been seen from the evidence discussed above1 (including that of Alexander Nash himself) that there is a body of civilian evidence to the effect that Alexander Nash was shot by a soldier firing from further north along Rossville Street.

1 Paragraphs 86.482–551

86.561 No soldier has admitted firing at Alexander Nash, nor do any of the soldiers’ descriptions – either of the individuals at whom they said that they fired, or of the circumstances in which they said that they fired – match either Alexander Nash or the circumstances in which he was injured. We discuss later in this report1 whether the trajectory photographs assist in determining which, if any, of the soldiers might have been responsible.

1 Chapter 89

86.562 We now turn to examine the evidence which, it is submitted by the representatives of the majority of represented soldiers,1 shows that Alexander Nash was injured by a man firing a pistol from the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

1 FS7.1700-1710

Private U

86.563 Private U did not mention the matter in his first RMP statement,1 which was principally concerned with the shot that he recorded that he had fired; and which we have considered earlier in this report.2 However, in a second RMP statement (untimed but dated 4th February 1972),3 he gave this account:

Further to my previous statement dated 1 Feb 72:4

I am at present serving with my unit engaged on IS Duties in Northern Ireland.

At Londonderry on the 30 January 1972 about 1615 hrs I was with my Company in the forecourt of Rossville Flats as the Northern corner, Grid 43251686. I had taken over a position here, observing people behind a barricade in Rossville St, about half way down block one of the flats. I saw 2 bodies lying down behind the barricade, a man of about 45 years came across to give assistance to one of the bodies, he had come out of the flats. I saw this man sit one of the bodies up behind the barricade and wave for assistance. I could now see that the body he had propped up was a youth of about 16–17 yrs, this youth had a wound to his stomach. I was approximately 50 meters from the barricade. The main doors at the bottom of the flats facing Rossville St were open and I saw an arm holding a pistol extended from behind the door. I saw the pistol jerk, observed the strike of the bullet. It hit about 5 metres short on the other side of the barricade, ricocheted and hit the man who had gone over to the youth, in the right arm. Immediately after this shot, another was fired by the gunman at the doors. I saw the youths head jerk and he slumped into the man’s arms. Previous to this the youth had been looking round. The man had been shouting, Come and help me, he’s dying. He also said, He’s been shot. After the youth was hit in the head, the man said, He’s dead’. and got up onto his feet and wandered off away from the barricade, apparently in a daze. One of our Humber APCs went forward to the barricade shortly after this and three bodies were removed from behind the barricade. One of these bodies was that of the youth I had seen hit in the head. Shortly after this my company withdrew from the area. About 2 days later this incident whilst watching the news on television I saw an interview with a man in hospital who said that the Army had shot his son, and shot him in the arm. This man on the interview was the man aged about 45 years to whom I have already referred.

1 B748

2 Paragraphs 34.4–5 and 85.29

3 B759-760

4 His first RMP statement was in fact dated
31st January 1972.

86.564 Private U gave written and oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry. In his written statement, after describing the shot he said he had fired himself, he made the following statement about the incident under consideration:1

At this point I could see two bodies on the barricade. One was a youth who was sat up with an old man holding him and he appeared to be looking round. I heard the old man shout He’s dying . At this point the two grey doors of the flat were open and a right arm appeared with a pistol. I did not engage the hand with the pistol as it was not a definite target and also there was people beyond it. I shouted across the road to the other soldiers but they could not hear me. The pistol fired two quick shots in the direction of the barricade. The first hit the ground and ricocheted into the old man who was holding the youth and the second appeared to hit the youth whose head jerked back. At this point the old man shouted He’s dead .

I could also see a blood stain on the youths shirt. The old man called to me to come and assist him. I told the Sergeant Major about it who said that he was waiting for a vehicle.

The old man was holding his arm as if wounded and he got up and walked away looking dazed. A vehicle was then sent in by the platoon commander who found three bodies which were piled behind the barricade. All had gun shot wounds and were dead.

1 B768-769

86.565 Private U gave a similar account in his oral evidence to the Widgery Inquiry.1He also told that Inquiry that he had not seen any firing down Rossville Street before soldiers had removed the three bodies on the rubble barricade.2

1 WT13.99-100; WT14.4-5

2 WT14.8

86.566 Private U gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. In his written statement he gave the following account:1

Another incident I remember at the Rubble Barricade (and I cannot remember whether it came after or before I shot the gunman). There were two young men and an old man. The old man was holding one of the young boys who was wearing a light shirt on which there was a large patch of blood. The boys were much much younger and the old man was much older than the man I shot with grey hair. The old man was shouting at me, as if beckoning me over. He was shouting something like help, he is dying.

As the man was beckoning me, an arm appeared out of the grey doorway which led from Block 1 of the Rossville Flats into Rossville Street, near to the Rubble Barricade. I cannot be sure whether it was a right arm or a left arm but visualising it now, I think it more likely to have been a right arm. The hand held a pistol, which was pointing towards the Rubble Barricade and, almost instantaneously, I heard two pistol shots in quick succession. I took it at the time that this gunman was shooting blind, possibly towards the soldiers by the wall. However, one of his shots (I cannot be sure which but I think it was the first one) hit the ground south of the Rubble Barricade and ricocheted up to hit the old man in the arm. It did not hit the barricade and bounce back when it ricocheted. It simply hit the ground and bounced back to continue travelling in the same direction. I say this because I think they misunderstood me on this point when I was giving my evidence to the Widgery tribunal. As the other shot rang out (probably the second) the young lad’s head jerked backwards. The impression I had at the time was that the shot had hit him. At that moment, the old man turned the young boy round, laid him down, and shouted something like he’s dead. He then wandered away, looking like he was in a daze.

The target was too small and there were too many people around the area from which the man with a pistol was firing for me to fire at him. I might have hit one of them or possibly someone further in the distance near Free Derry Corner. The target was just too small, unlike the first target I had fired at. I knew, however, that the soldiers on the other side of the road by the wall would have a better angle so, when I saw the pistol appear, I shouted over to them grey doors . I don’t think they heard me. I did not see them firing at the target. In fact, I do not remember the soldiers by the wall firing at all.

1 B787.006-007

86.567 In the course of his oral evidence to this Inquiry, it was suggested to Private U that he had made up his account of seeing a gunman fire from the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats and hit two people at the rubble barricade, in order to rebut what (as he had mentioned in his second RMP statement) he had seen on television. Private U maintained that he had seen this incident.1He gave the following answers:2

Q. We will have, so it is quicker, could we have page 760, please. This is the last sentence of the statement dated 4th February, a statement which only effectively deals with the Nashes, if I can put it generally. It says:

About two days after this incident [that is the one in Rossville Street] whilst watching the news on television I saw an interview with a man in hospital who said that the Army had shot his son, and shot him in the arm. This man on the interview was the man aged about 45 years to whom I have already referred.

That is in this statement. You had not said a word about this before you saw the television; had you?

A. I do not recall.

Q. I would like you to think carefully: you had not said a word about seeing a man, a more elderly man, an old man, however you want to describe him, at the barricade, had you?

A. I do not recall.

Q. You can take it from me, it is certainly not in your first statement, not a single reference to it in the first statement, on the night, on the 31st; do you follow?

A. I follow.

Q. It is a simple question: why had you not given any description, in the first statement on the night, of what you had seen at the barricade?

A. I cannot explain.

Q. Because it is the kind of thing, I suggest, the description, if you had seen it, that you could not forget and you would have put in the first statement. That is why I suggest you did not see it in the way you have described it and you do not have any other explanation; do you?

A. I have no other explanation.

1 Day 369/184-191

2 Day 369/184-185

Private 037

86.568 Private 037 made an RMP statement timed at 2230 hours on 4th February 1972,1the same date as the second RMP statement made by Private U. It was in the following terms:

I was observing the Street from a position at the North West corner of No 1 Block Rossville Flats looking in the direction of a barrie[r] which was placed across the street.

Behind this barrier I saw two male persons one of which was lying on the ground and appeared to be dead the other male person I saw waving both his hands in the air trying to draw some attention to himself. At this time no member of my Coy was firing in the direction of the barrier as they were preparing to withdraw.

Suddenly I heard a shot being fired, this shot was of low velocity and was fired from a front door of Block 1 Rossville Flats, which lead out into the street. This shot was directed at the male person who I saw waving his hands in the air.

This was followed by the person falling to the ground behind the barrier and at this point all I could see was his shoulder sticking up. I could not return fire as I was not in a position to do so. I noticed that as this male person fell he looked towards the doorway of the flats but I could not see any movement from this doorway only smoke coming from it.

I observed the area for about ten minutes then withdrew.

1 B1632-1633

86.569 Private 037, who was Major Loden’s driver and who, as we have explained earlier in this report,1was involved in the arrest of William John Dillon, did not give evidence to the Widgery Inquiry, but did give written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. In his written statement to this Inquiry, Private 037 told us that he had not seen the incident described in his RMP statement and could not have done so as he was only ever on the eastern corner of the northern gable of Block 1. He told us that a colleague told him about it and that he might have retold the story to the RMP, who then recorded it as if it were his own evidence. He denied that he had lied to the RMP in order to support someone else’s evidence. He stated that he was not asked to put forward a story in support of another soldier, and he did not take it upon himself so to do.2

1 Chapter 33 2B1636.3

86.570 In his oral evidence Private 037 said again that he had no first-hand knowledge of this incident, and had only a vague recollection of being told about it. He also suggested that he might not have given the RMP a statement at all, although he could not explain how his signature came to appear on the manuscript copy held by this Inquiry:1

Q. How did your signature end up on the manuscript version if you did not make the statement?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Because one possibility that arises from your evidence today and in your statement to Eversheds is that in 1972 you were prepared to put your signature to a statement in which you say you saw a number of events but which you now say was just knowledge gleaned from general conversation?

A. I am not saying that, I am saying I did not write this statement.

Q. But you signed it, did you not?

A. Yes, I did by all accounts, yes.

Q. So you were prepared to put your signature to a statement that recorded events you had not seen?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Why did you sign it?

A. Because this is not what I made.

Q. So how did your signature end up on this statement?

A. I would certainly like to know myself.

Q. Do you have any explanation?

A. No, I have none whatsoever.

1 Day 357/150-151

86.571 Private 037 told us that he knew Private U, but that he was not really friendly with him.1

1 Day 357/145-146

Lance Corporal 033

86.572 Lance Corporal 033 was a signaller who travelled into the Bogside in Major Loden’s command vehicle. He also made an RMP statement dated 4th February 1972.1This statement was timed at 1950 hours. We have already referred to this soldier and considered some of his evidence earlier in this report.2

1 B1617-1618 2Chapter 50 and paragraphs 51.343–344

86.573 In this statement Lance Corporal 033 described disembarking, making an arrest and returning to the command vehicle. After describing coming under Thompson sub-machine gun fire, Lance Corporal 033 recorded that he (apparently together with Major Loden and Lance Corporal INQ 627) ran forward to the end of the Flats and I took up a position at Grid 43271686, where I could observe people at the barricade across Rossville St, about half way down the flats ”.

86.574 The grid reference indicates a position a short distance to the north of the north end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

86.575 This statement continued:

I saw one male person apparently dead lying on the top of the barricade. Next to this body, behind the barricade was a male person waving his arms in the air as if to indicate an injured person behind the barrier. Also from this position I saw a gunman armed with a handgun shooting at troops advancing along the right hand side of Rossville St. The gunman was located on the ground floor of the flats, about three or four windows from the end. I could only see the arm with the gun extend into view and fire. The location was Grid 43251682. I did not engage fire. I think the gunman was engaged by troops on the right flank in Rossville St. Whilst observing the gunman I saw him switch his aim from the advancing troops and observed him fire at the man waving from behind the barricade. I think he fired twice at this man but I definitely observed one round strike behind the barricade. I did not observe any other gunmen or nail bombers during the engagement. At about 1630 hours we withdrew from the flats area. I did not fire any rounds during the engagement.

86.576 The grid reference that Lance Corporal 033 gave for the gunman indicated a position just south of the centre of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.

86.577 Lance Corporal 033 did not give evidence to the Widgery Inquiry but did give written and oral evidence to this Inquiry.

86.578 In his written statement to this Inquiry,1Lance Corporal 033 described vehicles moving forward to where he was standing near Block 1. He told us that he then heard SLR fire and, he thought, a different type of fire, possibly an M1 carbine. His statement continued:

My next memory is going to the northern corner of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats and looking down the side of the Flats. I could see a small barricade which had been set up across the road, which was very typical of the type you would see in No Go areas. I think it was slightly further north than the rubble barricade marked on the attached map (grid reference J15 on the map attached). It was made of general rubble and was not particularly high. I do not think it was above knee height at the highest point, but I was some distance away from it.

I could see a male lying on the barricade. I think his head was towards me and he was lying on his stomach and chest. I cannot remember anything about the clothing he was wearing. Another man was near to him. He was waving one hand; I cannot now remember which hand it was. I assumed, from what I saw, that the man lying near him had been shot. I thought he was indicating that he wanted help.

I took my gas mask off at some point, but I cannot remember whether it was before or after I looked round that corner.

I then saw part of an arm and a handgun emerge from Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, at ground level. I cannot remember whether the gun was in the person’s right or left hand. My memory of this incident is that the gun emerged out of a window but, looking at the photographs of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, I believe it would have been from the doorway. I have no memory of seeing a porch by the doorway; I just focused on the arm and the handgun. Seeing the gun was a surprise. It was very unusual to actually be able to see a gunman shooting a weapon, because they were usually concealed. I did not shoot because the arm and weapon did not provide enough of a target to shoot at from that range.

I could see that the gun was being fired by the recoil of the weapon. I did not see any shells eject. That does not2mean that shells were not ejected, some weapons ejected shells backwards and some forwards. It would, however, suggest that it could have been a revolver not a pistol.

The shots appeared to be aimed at the troops in what I know now (from the map attached) to be the area of Rossville Street, by Glenfada Park North. I do not know how many shots the terrorist fired. He then appeared to be engaged by troops on my right (on the western side in Rossville Street). I remember seeing a soldier there, shooting with an SLR. He was a right hand shot. I believe he fired one shot as I was looking at him. I think he may have been standing by a small wall as he was engaging his target. From where I was standing, it was not possible to see with any certainty where he was aiming, other than his weapon was pointing south. He was the only soldier that I can remember seeing shooting.

I then looked back south towards the barricade and then I saw one or two strikes of bullets that I assume came from the handgun on the barricade, close to the man who was waving, like small explosions of dust upwards. These strikes were from bullets fired behind the man on the barricade. The way the bullets struck the barricade, they could not have come from the soldiers. I found this very confusing. It looked to me as if the gunman was shooting at one of his own people. It did not make any sense, but that is what I saw and I have absolutely no doubt about that.

1 B1621.006-007

2 We have inserted the word “not ” since in his oral evidence to this Inquiry (Day 324/32-33) Lance Corporal 033 told us that this had been omitted in error.

86.579 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Lance Corporal 033 gave the following answers after he had been shown his RMP statement, in which he had described seeing the arm of the gunman about three or four windows from the end :1

Q. … There is an ambiguity in that sentence because it refers to the ground floor of the flats, but it also refers to three or four windows from the end.

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. And the windows are not on the ground.

A. I agree, sir.

Q. But it appears that three or four windows from the end, if we go back to P310, would take you to there or there (indicating). Do you think that when you made your RMP statement and referred to windows you were intending to indicate that the fire was from somebody firing out of a window?

A. No, sir. What I saw came from ground level. It was at ground level, down here. And I had not been down here. And I – I guess back then I thought these were windows; I did not know it was a doorway. So I was trying to work it out from there, sir.

Q. Are you saying that you thought the door that appears in the porch in your mind’s eye had become a window?

A. That is correct, sir.

1 Day 324/71-72

Private 112

86.580 Private 112 was a baton gunner who had disembarked from Sergeant O’s APC in Rossville Street. As we have described earlier in this report,1he was involved in the arrest of Charles Canning on the Eden Place waste ground. He recorded nothing in his RMP statement2that in our view relates to the incident under consideration. Private 112 gave written and oral evidence to this Inquiry. In the former he said that he recalled seeing the hand of a person holding a gun appear from a second floor window of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats and fire a single shot,3while in the latter he agreed, since there was nothing to this effect in his RMP statement, that it was possible that he had not seen this happen.4As we have noted earlier in this report,5Private 112 told us that he was an alcoholic and that his memory was blurred. In these circumstances we are of the view that it would be unwise to rely upon his evidence in relation to the matter under consideration.

1 Chapter 35

2 B1730

3 B1732.005

4 Day 320/116

5 Paragraph 34.2

Lieutenant 227

86.581 Later in this report, when dealing with the events of Sector 5,1we consider in detail the evidence given by Lieutenant 227, who was observing from Charlie OP, an Observation Post on the City Walls, near the Walker Monument. In his accounts he described hearing two or three pistol shots being fired from the area of Rossville flats 2though he saw no civilian with a weapon.3

1 Paragraphs 119.57–82 and 119.225–234

2 B2186.2; B2184; WT16.42-44

3 WT16.43; WT16.49; B2204.004; Day 371/168-170;
Day 371/204-207

Summary of the soldiers’ evidence of a gunman at ground level at the south end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats

86.582 As will have been seen, the soldiers who gave evidence of a gunman firing in Rossville Street gave differing accounts of what they saw. Private U, having said nothing in his first RMP statement, gave in his second RMP statement and subsequent evidence detailed accounts to the effect that he saw a gunman firing two shots from the doors of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, of which the first hit a man in the right arm and the second hit in the head the youth the man was holding up. Private 037 originally said that he had seen a man at the rubble barricade waving both hands in the air, and had then heard a low velocity shot fired from the door of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats at this man, who had fallen to the ground; but afterwards told us that he had not seen this incident. Lance Corporal 033 described a gunman at ground level firing from a window (or, as he suggested in his evidence to this Inquiry, the doorway) near the southern end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, first at soldiers advancing along the other side of Rossville Street and then at a man next to a body waving from behind the rubble barricade.

Kieran Gill and the Sunday Times Insight Team

86.583 Kieran Gill became involved with the Insight Team as a local stringer as they worked on their article on Bloody Sunday.1 He gave evidence to this Inquiry that in the course of this work he and Peter Pringle developed a theory about Alexander Nash being shot by a low velocity weapon. Kieran Gill told us that he received information from a Provisional IRA source that a member of the Official IRA had fired a revolver on Bloody Sunday. Kieran Gill was not prepared to name his source.2 According to his account, he and Peter Pringle found the address and went to the home of the Official IRA volunteer, probably during the period in which the Widgery Inquiry was sitting.3 According to Kieran Gill, the man recognised him and Peter Pringle. They told him that the Provisional IRA had said that he fired a revolver on Bloody Sunday. Kieran Gill said something like So you shot Mr Nash! The man looked horrified. He admitted that he had fired a revolver around a door of the Rossville Flats. He said that he had fired the revolver after the Army had fired between 100 and 150 rounds and there had been a lull in the shooting. There were people lying dead in front of the flats. People were frightened that the soldiers were going to come into the flats and continue to shoot. The man said that he had fired three or four shots up Rossville Street to make the soldiers stay away.4

1 M105.13

2 M105.13-14; Day 205/116-117

3 Day 206/111-114

4 M105.14

86.584 Kieran Gill told us that he and Peter Pringle said to the Official IRA volunteer that he might have shot Alexander Nash in the arm.1 Kieran Gill said that he thought that he had filed a short story as a memo to the group news editor , but he did not know whether it was ever used. The essential purpose of this memorandum would have been to flag the issue for further discussion.2 Although Kieran Gill told us that he believed that he or Peter Pringle had intended to go back and interview the Official IRA volunteer, he did not do so and he did not know whether anyone else had done so. Kieran Gill had a vague memory that after speaking to the man, he and Peter Pringle had gone to the door of the Rossville Flats to see whether it would have been possible for Alexander Nash to have been shot from there, and had concluded that it would.3

1 M105.14

2 Day 206/119-120

3 Day 206/120-122

86.585 It will have been noted that Kieran Gill did not suggest that the Official IRA volunteer had admitted that he had, or might have, shot Alexander Nash.

86.586 Kieran Gill told us in a supplementary statement that he approached the Official IRA volunteer again on 1st May 2002. The man said that he had no recollection of the conversation described by Kieran Gill in his first statement and denied that he had fired a revolver from the door of the Rossville Flats on Bloody Sunday.1

1 M105.28-29

86.587 It is clear that Peter Pringle knew of the theory that Alexander Nash had been shot by a paramilitary gunman. However, some of this knowledge, at least, came in our view from the evidence given to the Widgery Inquiry. His notebook for Day 9 of the hearings of that Inquiry recorded: Nash senior: not shot by army bullet. 1

1 M68.226

86.588 A draft of the Sunday Times Insight Team’s article suggested that Alexander Nash might have been shot with a low velocity weapon fired from the doorway of the Rossville Flats.1 In his oral evidence to this Inquiry,2 Peter Pringle was asked why this suggestion had been left out of the Sunday Times article3 published on 23rd April 1972. In fact counsel asking the question was mistaken, because the article as published stated in terms that a bullet fired from the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats had probably hit Alexander Nash.4

Nash had one hand on his son’s back, his left arm in the air. It was at this point that U’s ‘mystery pistol’ appeared. Alex Nash was shot through the left arm from the direction of the doorway, the bullet passing straight through from right to left. Medical evidence suggests the bullet was low-velocity which fits a pistol. The balance of probability, as Widgery agreed, suggests that somebody poked a pistol round the doors of the flats and – it being clearly imprudent to step out into full view – fired blindly at the nearest soldiers.

1 S303

2 Day 191/33

3 L213

4 L214

86.589 Peter Pringle, clearly labouring under the same mistake, said that it must have been omitted because we had no evidence that would satisfy us that it was – to be included and that the information may have been uncorroborated.1

1 Day 191/33

86.590 When Peter Pringle gave oral evidence, Kieran Gill had not yet made his first witness statement, and so Kieran Gill’s account was not put to Peter Pringle. However, in written comments provided to this Inquiry on 25th May 2003,1 Peter Pringle told us that he had no recollection of the incident Mr Gill relates and could find no reference in his notebooks to such a meeting with the PIRA or the OIRA .

1 M68.375

86.591 OIRA 1 said in his oral evidence to this Inquiry that he was the man whom Kieran Gill had approached about this matter in May 2002. However, he denied that Kieran Gill had spoken to him in 1972 to suggest that he had fired a shot from the doorway that may have struck Alexander Nash. He also denied that he had been involved in any such incident. He did not know whether any other member of the Official IRA had given Kieran Gill information about the events of Bloody Sunday.1 His evidence was that throughout the main incidents of Bloody Sunday he was in areas to the west of Rossville Street.2

1 Day 395/145-152

2 AOIRA1.6-11; AOIRA1.26-30

86.592 Elsewhere in this report1 we have considered the note that John Barry of the Sunday Times Insight Team made of what we are sure OIRA 1 had told him: about firing from Columbcille Court at a soldier beside the Presbyterian church, then returning to Glenfada Park North and fleeing through the south-western corner of Glenfada Park North as soldiers came into that area, after he had seen Michael Kelly lying at the gable end.2

1 Paragraphs 19.12–21, 19.35–36, 111.22–32 and
111.156–173

2 AOIRA1.1-2

86.593 OIRA 1 disputed much of what was contained in John Barry’s note, but not that he had fled westwards from Glenfada Park North when the soldiers came in. We have, apart from Kieran Gill’s evidence, nothing to suggest that OIRA 1 made his way to the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. At the same time, as we have observed elsewhere in this report,1 OIRA 1 has not always told the truth about his movements immediately before and on Bloody Sunday.

1 Paragraphs 19.21–32, 19.40, 111.25–26 and 111.73

John Nash

86.594 We have already referred1to the evidence given by John Nash, one of Alexander Nash’s sons. In 2000, Jimmy McGovern interviewed John Nash. The interview was tape-recorded and when John Nash was talking about his father he said this:2

JN: Now apparently they say we have just come across it now but my father has been telling me for the last twenty seven years that he was shot by a soldier. Right ... he says that the soldier who shot him approached him, fired, and came forward again and had the gun raised and he, he says I, I looked in he’s eyes and I swore blind he going to fucking finish me off. But for some reason he didn’t and he put the gun down. Now that is what he has been telling me for twenty six years … but then you have … some other fucking eejit and I actually went down to the Republic of Ireland. I went into a Sinn Fein office and apparently this is only a few years back way this guy says that he is the person responsible for shooting me Da … well I went down to face him and tell him he was a fucking liar … and I would a done it only this guy didn’t turn up … that particular day you know what I mean … but I went down … you know what I mean as far as … if it means that he was telling the truth my father has been lying to me for twenty seven years. And I don’t think my father was lying to me … he says that he was shot now apparently we have been told that nowhere, no statement does me father say that he was shot by the British Army. That is not correct. Because I there is video footage there where me father says that he was shot by the soldier … there is also a statement to say that he was shot and then in questioning when they came up to pick up the bodies you know well why did you not say anything then and me father reply was sure wouldn’t they a shot again. You know which indicates that he was talking about them and us them being the British Army and us being obviously us you know. So he did he has says that but he … obviously no written statement as he says it was actually a British soldier but he has within a day or two after it says on video footage that he was shot by the British Army.

J.McG: It is strange for a Sinn Fein man to say it was I who shot him cause he must have been an idiot … I mean … The soldiers were all in uniform your father … is the argument that he …

J.N: The argument is that he, he is just … well the argument is that he just stuck he’s hand out the door and he fired you know what I mean well … this is … a soldiers statement … you know what I mean and I do not believe that statement … you know what I mean because I you know there is nobody dis … because if the points his hand out the door and there is quite a number of people at that door as you can see … you know what I mean like … and I know some of the people that are … the likes of Jimmy Green … people like that there … who are there standing at the door … and he said naw they never seen no gunman at that point …

1 Paragraphs 86.203, 86.205–207 and 86.475

2 AN6.21

86.595 John Nash had not mentioned in his original evidence to this Inquiry that someone had admitted responsibility for shooting his father. At that stage the Inquiry was not aware that Jimmy McGovern had interviewed John Nash, and so the latter was not asked any questions about this interview. However, after the Inquiry had received the transcript, John Nash was interviewed again and gave a supplementary statement.1

1 AN6.53-54

86.596 In this statement John Nash gave the following account:

At Page AN6.21 (a copy of which is attached to this statement), the notes record a trip I made to the Republic to visit the Sinn Fein office. This trip was made by me in 1997. The purpose of the trip was actually to meet John Bruton, Dick Spring and Mr De Rossa, in connection with the campaign for a new public inquiry into Bloody Sunday. I was involved in that campaign.

Shortly before that trip I had a conversation in a bar with another man. As often happens to me, the man knew who I was and wanted to talk about Bloody Sunday. I do not remember this man and I cannot say who he was. The gist of what he told me was that there had been an article in the republican newspaper An Phoblacht, about my father’s shooting. He told me that this article contained an admission by a civilian gunman that it was him who had shot my father. He did not have a copy of the article and did not tell me the name of the person who had made that admission.

I thought that this suggestion was inherently unlikely for a number of reasons. Firstly, my father had always maintained that he was shot by a soldier. He was quite definite about this. Secondly, I am aware of the photographs of the area around the rubble barricade and the doorway to block one of the Rossville Flats. Over the years I must have spoken to just about everyone shown in those photographs. Not one of them has ever mentioned to me any civilian gunman. Thirdly, it is extremely unlikely that such a story would be carried by a republican newspaper such as An Phoblacht. If such a story had been published by anyone, it would certainly have subsequently received wider exposure.

Despite my doubts, I decided that when I was next in Dublin I would visit Sinn Fein’s offices and see if it was possible to look at back copies of An Phoblacht. If such an article did exist I obviously wanted to see it. I would certainly then have wanted to confront the person who had apparently admitted shooting my father.

I remember visiting Sinn Fein’s offices in Parnell Square, Dublin. I spoke there to a man who undertook to help me. He said that he would have a look through his back copies and see if any such article existed. On that basis I agree to return the following day.

However, when I went back the next day this man was not there. The man who I did see had no knowledge of the conversation that I had had with his colleague the previous day. I was due to catch a bus back to Derry shortly, so I left the matter there.

I have never subsequently followed this story up. This reflects the fact that I never really had any belief in the story in the first place. I did not discuss this with my father Alexander either. In his last years my father did not enjoy the best of health, and I would not have wanted to trouble him by raising issues like this.

86.597 No article containing an admission to the shooting of Alexander Nash has come to light, whether published in An Phoblacht or elsewhere.

86.598 John Nash was recalled to give oral evidence to this Inquiry about this matter. He told us that he was aware of the Insight Team’s article in the Sunday Times of 23rd April 1972,1in which, in apparent reliance on the evidence given to the Widgery Inquiry and on Lord Widgery’s report, it was said that Alexander Nash had probably been hit by a shot fired from the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats; and that he was also aware of the evidence given to the Widgery Inquiry by Private U.2John Nash told us that he had had the conversation with someone in a bar in Derry whom, at that particular time , he did not know, and that he never did know his name.3

1 L214

2 Day 424/80-81

3 Day 424/81-82

86.599 When John Nash was referred to the transcript of his interview with Jimmy McGovern, there was the following exchange:1

Q. Reading it alone by itself, what you appeared to have told Mr McGovern was that you went to confront someone who claimed to have shot your father, a civilian who claimed to have shot your father and so whose name was known to you; do you follow?

A. Yes.

Q. But your evidence is that that is not the position at all?

A. That is absolutely not the case. You know, had I have ever known of any – the name of any individual who would have made such a statement as that, the first people to know that name would be the Inquiry. I have done absolutely nothing over the last six years but do my best and my utmost best to assist this Inquiry. If I have given the impression that I actually knew the name of this gunman, then I have given, in this particular interview, I have given a wrong impression and I apologise for that.

Q. Because it seems to be the impression that Mr McGovern had because he then asks you, he says:

It is strange for a Sinn Fein man to say ‘It was I who shot him’ because he must have been an idiot and you do not appear to have corrected him at that point.

Were you surprised when you saw this transcript again and saw what Mr McGovern’s impression had been?

A. I have a – I have never actually seen this particular part of the transcript.

Q. This particular page?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. It is attached to your supplementary statement?

A. Yes, I did not read it.

Q. Was there any reason why you chose not to read it?

A. No, not really.

1 Day 424/88-89

Consideration of the evidence relating to whether a soldier or a paramilitary gunman shot Alexander Nash

86.600 There is no direct civilian evidence that OIRA 1 or any paramilitary gunman fired from the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats on Bloody Sunday. However, if, as we consider to be the case, Alexander Nash was wounded at a relatively late stage, after Kevin McElhinney had been shot and carried upstairs, there may have been few if any people still around that entrance. We note also that Alphonsus Cunningham, who was sheltering in a house on the eastern side of Glenfada Park North, said in his evidence to this Inquiry that he remembered hearing two or three low velocity gunshots which came from the direction of the Rossville Flats. He said: I immediately thought that some maniac had decided to take on the army with a pistol. 1It is possible that these were the shots under consideration, though it is not entirely clear from Alphonsus Cunningham’s account when he heard them.

1 AC125.3; Day 150/20-22

86.601 We accept Kieran Gill’s evidence. In our view he did not make up his account of seeking out the Official IRA volunteer he had been told had fired from the entrance to Block 1, and of this man admitting to him and Peter Pringle that he had fired at a stage when there were dead bodies lying in front of the Rossville Flats. Equally, we can see no reason why Kieran Gill should have come mistakenly to believe that this admission had been made. In our view, on the basis of his evidence, it is probable that a paramilitary gunman fired from the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats at a stage when there were casualties lying in front of the Rossville Flats, by which someone observing from the entrance would have meant that they were lying in Rossville Street. In our view Lieutenant 227 may well have heard these shots.

86.602 As we noted above,1Kieran Gill did not suggest that the Official IRA volunteer whom he met admitted that he had shot Alexander Nash. The only direct evidence that a paramilitary gunman shot a man who must have been Alexander Nash came from Private U; though, according to his RMP statement (from which he later resiled), Private 037 recorded that a man, who must have been Alexander Nash, fell after a low velocity shot had been fired at him from the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats. Lance Corporal 033, while he said that the gunman had fired towards Alexander Nash, did not say that the gunman had hit him.

1 Paragraph 86.585

86.603 While Private U may have seen a gunman fire from the entrance to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, we are not persuaded by his account that one of the gunman’s bullets hit the man who must have been Alexander Nash and that the other hit in the head the youth whom the man was holding up. Alexander Nash was hit in the left arm, not the right as Private U had described. The other casualties at the rubble barricade were all shot before Alexander Nash had gone out to his son. There is, as we have described, a substantial body of civilian evidence that a soldier firing from somewhere further north along Rossville Street wounded him. Had Private U actually seen a paramilitary gunman shoot two men on the rubble barricade, we are sure that he would have recorded this in his first RMP statement. We do not accept his explanation that he was told by the RMP to explain what he did, not what he saw.1Later in his oral evidence to this Inquiry, Private U said that he could not explain why he had not included a description of this shooting in his first RMP statement.2

1 Day 369/32; Day 369/43-44

2 Day 369/185

86.604 For reasons given elsewhere in this report,1we consider that in a number of respects Private U gave untruthful evidence. In our view his evidence about seeing the gunman hit the man and the youth he was holding up was an invention on his part, which was probably an attempt to divert the blame from the soldiers for two casualties at the rubble barricade. As to Private 037, he set out in his RMP statement something that he had not himself witnessed. It is possible that he did so in the belief that what he had been told was true, but even if this was the case, we find his RMP statement of no evidential value. On balance, we consider that Lance Corporal 033 saw the gunman, but this soldier did not suggest that he had seen him hit Alexander Nash.

1 Paragraphs 24.40, 49.87 and 85.76

86.605 On our assessment of the evidence as a whole, we have concluded that it is probable that a soldier, not a paramilitary gunman, shot Alexander Nash.

86.606 Although we are not sure, we consider on balance that OIRA 1 was the gunman. In view of what we consider was the unreliability of much of his evidence, he probably, contrary to the accounts he gave of his movements, made his way to Block 1 of the Rossville Flats, and fired from there. If the gunman was not OIRA 1, we have no evidence to suggest who else it could have been.

86.607 Later in this report1we consider whether it is possible to identify the soldiers responsible for the casualties in Sector 3.

1 Chapter 89

The removal of the bodies of Michael McDaid, John Young and William Nash

86.608 After the events of Sectors 4 and 5 were over, soldiers collected the bodies of these casualties and put them into Lieutenant N’s APC which had been driven from the area at the north end of Block 1 of the Rossville Flats and was then driven back there, after which it was used to take the bodies to the mortuary at Altnagelvin Hospital. We discuss this matter in more detail1after consideration of the events of Sectors 4 and 5.

1 Chapter 122