‘For years people have accused us of firing indiscriminately. We weren’t. We came under fire and under attack. It is strange how this ‘new’ evidence is coming out when nobody mentions the nail bombs and acid bombs they threw at us. I wonder when the other side will start mentioning those. There were thousands of people in the streets that day. If people are saying that we were firing indiscriminately why were there no women and children killed?’
Each side blamed the other for the disaster. The soldiers claimed that they were fired on first by the IRA, who were accused of using the march as a means of provoking a response. Catholics believed that the army had deliberately attacked the marchers.
There are many different historical interpretations over the events which happened on 30th January 1972. Looking at source A it shows that there are two different views and both of them claim to tell the truth. Lord Saville needs to find out what is the true historical interpretation on the events that happened ending in the death of fourteen citizens. From source A it shows that there is still more things that Lord Saville needs to discover to make sure that the finished inquiry is the correct one. Seeing what a former soldier has to say shows that the soldiers were under fire from nail bombs and acid bombs. This must all be taken into account because on this day the soldiers were made to make up their own minds because the officers could not keep an eye on all of them because of the number of people in the crowd. This must be taken into account because if the British Army did shoot first it may have been the correct action for the circumstances.
Source B shows new evidence that the victims were all innocent. The source is also from a newspaper and is written by John Mullin, Ireland Correspondent from the Guardian newspaper, Friday 17th September 1999. The source explains that there is evidence that the victims were innocent and defenceless. It shows that the Widgery investigation is not altogether correct because Widgery reported that those who had been shot had been handling weapons. Civilian witnesses always denied this. In Lord Saville’s inquiry none of the witnesses had weapons or were near to any. It has been discovered that one of the victims Jim Wary 22, was lying on the ground when he was shot twice. His lawyer said ‘the conclusion merited a murder prosecution.’ This new evidence shows that whoever it was who did shot Mr Wary murdered him. Another victim who was shot was killed by a “dum-dum” bullet. These bullets are illegal because they are dangerous. When the bullet hits the victim it shatters on the impact meaning that the person dies immediately. One of Lord Saville’s experts describes the ballistic forensic evidence accepted at the Widgery inquiry as being ‘worthless’. The victim’s families are pleased with the new evidence that is being discovered so that they can find out what happened on the day that their loved ones died.
John Martin is a Northern Ireland forensic scientist and he was the one who carried out the original tests now says ‘developments in testing show the same findings could be explained by contamination including emissions from car exhaust. There could no longer be a “strong suspicion” that any of the victims held or were near weapons.’
Twenty six years after the first inquiry with Widgery, scientific knowledge has improved so that new evidence that was not seen before has now become uncovered so that the truth of what happened on the day of the deaths is slowly coming to the truth. This source shows that there have been different historical interpretations because there has not been the advance in medical science as there is now. Using the new technology it is now easier to put together the facts and discover what happened by re-examining the bodies looking at the photos taken at the time and discover who it was who shot the thirteen which are dead. Looking at this source it is clear to see that Lord Saville is now gathering all the facts and information that he knows so that he can produce a correct piece of information concerning what happened on the day of the deaths. This source also shows that the Widgery inquiry is not correct and has missed out important information. Lord Saville has discovered that one of the victims was shot twice while on the ground this was not in Widgery’s report. It just shows that even though the event occurred twenty six years ago there is still more evidence which was not seen at the time which is coming to light now. Putting all this new evidence together the true historical events will be clear. When the inquiry has finished there will be one historical interpretation although whether the public choose to accept what Lord Saville discovers is still to be found out.
Source C is an ITN new report on 28th November 2000. The source is what one man heard before the events of Bloody Sunday took place and believes that they are connected to what he overheard between British soldiers. The witness Daniel Porter was the first witness of up to 1,500 to go up onto the stand and to share what he had heard and saw to do with the 30th January 1972. Daniel Porter said that he heard soldiers talk before hand of ‘cleaning the Bog’. Mr Porter said that had been told of the plan by off duty troops in a pub in England. Mr Porter later linked what he had heard to the military operation in Derry. Daniel Porter said ‘I remember one night they started talking, saying that they would be going to Derry to ‘clear the Bog’, by which I understood that they would be clearing away the barricades. They said they would be landing with tanks. I got the impression they were going to Northern Ireland pretty shortly.’
Source C is just one of the witnesses to come forward and to share what they know to Lord Saville to help him with his inquiry. Daniel Porter told Lord Saville all that he had heard between the British Soldiers that night in the pub. If what Mr. Porter has said is true then he is saying that the paratroopers just didn’t fire at the marchers in a spur of the moment, but they had planned before hand that they would do it. Lord Saville must now take into account that twenty eight years has passed since the event and that Mr. Porter has read the media and may have changed the story slightly even if it was not meant to be. Lord Saville must remember this for all the witness that are called forward because the events will have come unclear with time and it will be Lord Saville’s job to get the truth out of them. Daniel Porters statement will be considered carefully to see what can be discovered from it. It also needs to be checked that what he heard was linked to Bloody Sunday and not another event this is because it needs the correct interpretation so that people won’t be wrongly accused.
The question now needs to be asked why there are such different historical interpretations on 30th January 1972. I think there are so many interpretations and conclusions, because of the many different people who have views on the events. There are the Paratroopers, Catholics, Protestants, and Marchers who were there. Family’s of the killed, Scientists, the general public, and many other groups of people that see the events differently. Because of these different people, evidence has come from them that is different to other people’s views. There is also the media which lots of people have read on the event and have reached their own conclusion. There are also people putting different ideas to other people, changing there conclusions of the events. There are is lots of different types of evidence that has come from all different types of groups of people. This is the causing lots of different views on what actually happened on ‘Bloody Sunday’ which is why it is so hard for the new inquiry, Lord Savilles’s inquiry, to find the correct facts and find out what really happened on ‘Bloody Sunday’. At the moment it is still putting together all of the facts and it is still not clear who shot the thirteen victims the IRA or the British Army. There is no doubt that there were IRA members were present in Londonderry and that they were in the crowd along the route of the march. Martin McGuinness, the present Minister for Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly, was a member of the IRA in 1972 and was present at the march. He has been accused of firing a shot at the soldiers. He denies the accusation and at present there is no evidence to support the accusation. Another piece of information that is needed is the orders which the soldiers got which their actions were based on. The general orders which the soldiers had been given was that each soldier was able to decide whether he had identified a gunman and could then retaliate in whatever way he thought appropriate. It is easy to understand why the army issued orders such as these because it would be very difficult for an officer to take command when his men could be spread out over a wide area. At the same time, the orders gave great responsibility to individual soldiers to act with caution when they were under great stress.
There are lots of different conclusions that have come out of the new inquiry by looking at the new evidence. Lord Widgery’s evidence was most likely fixed to clear the Paratroopers names, the evidence which is showing up now clears the victims names and shows that they were innocent. The more evidence that comes up the more arguments there are. Lord Widgery’s inquires were made soon after Bloody Sunday some may argue that Widgery’s evidence is better than the evidence coming up twenty to thirty years later because it was found when the event happened. The scientists who are finding evidence today can’t look at the victims body do a thorough examination as they could when Bloody Sunday had just happened. People may argue that medical science has improved so that they can look at the pictures which were taken and have a clearer idea about what happened than the scientists at the time. Now that the event was twenty to thirty years ago it is harder to find new evidence and to make a conclusion there are always people saying that it is wrong and some evidence contradicts another piece of evidence, so it is hard to find out which one is right. Some of the evidence could be bias for example a Paratrooper wouldn’t say that he didn’t see anyone with a gun, and he just shot innocent people. Also any Irish witnesses at the time would likely be supportive of the IRA because they were Catholics and would likely be supportive of the IRA’s cause and so wouldn’t want to support the claims of British Soldiers.
