The events that occurred in Derry on 30th January 1979 became known as Bloody Sunday. Why have these events produced such different historical interpretations?
On January 30th 1972, civil rights activists were involved in a protest march against internment through Londonderry. British paratroopers, who were deployed on the streets, shot and killed 13 of the marchers and wounded others. Many people have different views on what happened and why.
The main conflicting views are those of the paratroopers and their supporters and the views of the marchers and the friends and family of those killed. Source A is a newspaper report form the Daily Mail in September 1999. It is a report on new evidence released from the second enquiry into Bloody Sunday, led by Lord Saville. The headline reads “PARAS IN BLOODY SUNDAY EVIDENCE STORM”. This headline states the situation that the report is based on. The report includes the opinions of different people on the new evidence. The new evidence suggests that the original tests, which confirmed that some of the protesters shot had been handling firearms or explosives, may have been contaminated. It concluded that, “there is no credible evidence that any of the 14 people killed by the army in Londonderry in January 1972 had been handling firearms.” The premature release of this evidence “incensed” the paratroopers and their supporters. The paratroopers have always claimed that every person shot appeared to be armed and that “nail bombs and acid bombs” were thrown at them. The Widgery Enquiry cleared them of any criminal charge, but this new evidence could pave the way to charges being brought against them. The conservative MP representing the constituency where the Paras are based said “I had little faith in the in enquiry before, and I have none now…the enquiry is, frankly, an absolute disaster.” The conservative party was in power at the time of the Bloody Sunday shootings and would have supported their army. However, this would be welcomed by the marchers and families of those killed, as they have always insisted that those killed were innocent victims of British paratroopers. They were greatly angered at the findings of the Widgery enquiry and believed that it was a whitewash by the British government. This new evidence presents a new chance for those who they believe are murderers to be put on trial. Another change, which discredits the original evidence, is that “forensic scientist Dr. John Martin, who gave evidence to the Widgery hearing that Mr. Wray had been handling guns or explosives, has reversed his opinion”. This is bad for the Paratroopers side of the story, but could suggest that Dr. Martin had been under pressure to support the soldiers in the enquiry, as their story was based on the protestors firing guns at them.
