Essay Plan for “Bloody Sunday”
The events that occurred in Derry on 30 January 1972 became known as 'Bloody Sunday'. Why have these events produced such different historical interpretations? Refer to Sources A to C and any other interpretations of the events from your studies to help you in your answer.

Introduction
Describe the situation in Ireland in 1972 and the events leading up to, and the events of bloody Sunday.

Discussion
• Describe the possible interpretations of Bloody Sunday.
• Explain, quoting evidence and examples from the Sources, why these interpretations have come about.
• Try to give all possible reasons, think in terms of perspective, time, place etc. Do not quote Source letters, but footnote correctly.
• When examining reasons for different interpretations look at events prior to and after the events.

Conclusion
Answer the question. You are not being asked to assign blame for the events, merely to explain why there are difficulties coming to a reasoned conclusion.

An account of the events of Sunday 31st January 1972

The tragic and inevitable doomsday situation which has been universally forecast for Northern Ireland arrived in Londonderry yesterday afternoon when soldiers firing into a large crowd of civil rights demonstrators, shot and killed 13 civilians. Seventeen more people, including a woman, were injured by gunfire and another woman was seriously injured after being knocked down by a speeding armoured car.

The army reported two military casualties and said that their soldiers had arrested between 50 and 60 people, who had been allegedly involved in the illegal protest march.

After the shooting, which lasted for about 25 minutes in and around the Rossville Flats area of Bogside, the streets had all the appearance of the aftermath of Sharpeville. Where, only moments before, thousands of men and women had been milling around, drifting slowly towards a protest meeting to be held at Free Derry Corner, there was only a handful of bleeding bodies, some lying still, others still moving with pain, on the white concrete of the square.

The Army's official explanation for the killing was that their troops had fired in response to a number of snipers who had opened up on them from below the flats. But those of us at the meeting heard only one shot before the soldiers opened up with their high velocity rifles.

And while it is impossible to be absolutely sure, one came away with the firm impression, reinforced by dozens of eyewitnesses, that the soldiers, men of the 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, flown in specially from Belfast, may have fired needlessly into the huge crowd.

The death toll at 7.30 pm, three hours after the shooting, was said to be 12, all men and all said to be in their mid-twenties. A thirteenth victim was reported later. The assistant secretary of the Altnagelvin Hospital, Mr L Thompson, said: "I have seen 12 bodies here that have all probably been killed by gunfire. There are 16 people in the wards. Fifteen of these have gunshot wounds and one of them is a woman. There is also a girl, named as Miss Burke, aged 18, who is seriously injured after being struck by a vehicle. I understand it was an army truck.

An army statement at 7.30 pm said that after an hour of heavy stoning, men of the 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment moved into the William Street and Rossville Street areas from behind the units who were manning barricades. "They went in to arrest people in the crowd and chased and caught several men who were running away," the statement said. "While this operation was in progress, gunmen opened up from rubble at the base of the Rossville Flats and soldiers returned the fire. Casualty returns are still coming in."

It is understood that about fifty people were taken in army vehicles to a nearby naval base and were then handed over to the RUC, many to be charged with riotous behaviour. The 1,500 troops came under the direct command of the commanding officer of Five Brigade, Brigadier Pat MacLellan, though the commander, Land Forces, Major General Robert Ford, was also there in a supervisory capacity. Assistant Chief Constable David Corbett directed the 500 policemen deployed in the city.

Source A
PARAS IN BLOODY SUNDAY EVIDENCE STORM

The inquiry by Lord Saville into the Bloody Sunday shootings was at the centre of a fresh row last night. Former Paratroopers and their supporters were incensed at the premature and partial release of a new forensic report. They believe it is a part of a piecemeal process intended to swing public opinion against them and possibly pave the way for some to be put on trial. The report, from independent experts commissioned by Lord Saville, says 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 report was greeted with triumph by Nationalist politicians and the families, who had long campaigned for a new investigation. But the early publication provoked a furious reaction among paratroopers involved. They argue that it is a small and misleading part of the full picture and the whole truth can emerge only when Lord Saville's inquiry is complete.

The ex-Paras have already had to fight a marathon battle for the right to give evidence without being identified, as Lord Saville originally ruled they should. Their supporters have accused Tony Blair of setting up the inquiry to appease Sinn Fein during talks on the Northern Ireland peace process. Tory MP Gerald Howarth, whose Aldershot constituency covers the Paras' base, said last night: 'I had little faith in the inquiry before, and I have none now. There may be overwhelming new evidence, but we need to see the full report, not a partial account. If the new inquiry is to get at the truth, then surely the way to do that is to give confidence to the men who were actually there on the day that it is not a partisan inquiry. The inquiry is, frankly, an absolute disaster.'

One of the former soldiers attacked the new 'evidence' as 'rubbish'. He said: '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 is going to 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?'

In a crucial U- turn, 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. One of Lord Widgery's conclusions was that 'at one end of the scale, some soldiers showed a high degree of responsibility; at the other end, firing bordered on recklessness'. At the original inquest, Londonderry coroner Major Hubert 0' Neill, said 'the Army ran amok' and described the incident as 'sheer unadulterated murder'.

The Daily Mail, Friday 17 September 1999 By Paul Eastham, Deputy Political Editor.

Source B
BLOODY SUNDAY REVELATION
This backs up what we have been saying all these years: the victims were innocent.

The families of 14 people shot dead on Bloody Sunday last night hailed new and independent scientific evidence as a major breakthrough in their 27-year fight to prove that those who died were innocent and defenceless victims of British paratroopers. One of the new reports, commissioned by Lord Saville's fresh inquiry, demolishes a key finding of the 1972 Widgery investigation into the Londonderry massacre, which ruled that many of those who had been shot had been handling weapons. Civilian witnesses have always denied that. A second report, also sought by Lord Saville, indicates that victim Jim Wray, 22, was lying on the ground when he was shot twice. It suggests he was hit from around a metre away. His lawyer said the conclusion merited a murder prosecution.

The report, by forensic scientists Dick Shepherd and Kevin O'Callaghan, suggests Barney McGulgan, 41, a father of six, was shot through the back of the head by a "dum-dum" bullet. These fragment on impact and are illegal under the Geneva convention. One expert commissioned by Lord Saville now describes as "worthless" the ballistic and forensic evidence forwarded and accepted at the Widgery inquiry. Liam Wray, brother of Jim Wray, said: "The revelations, and they come from independent experts, are a vindication of the Derry people. It is a major step forward. The 1972 Widgery report, had cleared the soldiers who opened fire. It ruled that they had been shot at before responding, which is strongly denied in Derry. John Martin, a Northern Ireland forensic scientist, carried out the original tests now he says that developments in testing show the same findings could be explained by contamination, including emissions from car exhausts. He concedes there could no longer be a "strong suspicion" that any of the victims held or were near weapons.

Northern Ireland: special report John Mullin, Ireland Correspondent: Guardian Friday September 17,1999 See http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/A-rticle/0,4273,3902951,00.htm

Source C
BLOODY SUNDAY WITNESS APPEARS

A witness has told the Bloody Sunday inquiry into the deaths of 13 men in Londonderry that he heard soldiers talk beforehand of 'clearing the Bog'. Daniel Porter claimed he was told of the plan by off-duty troops in a pub in England and later linked it to the military operation in Derry's Bogside on January 30 1972, when 13 men were shot dead. Mr. Porter was the first of up to 1,500 witnesses set to take the stand in the mammoth inquiry, 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 would be going to Northern Ireland pretty shortly."

An ITN news report broadcast on 28 November 2000 http://itn.co.uk/news/20001128/btitian/O5bloody.shtml http://itn.co.uk/btitain.shtnd/brit20000327/video/4shoot.ram
provides a video excerpt

Source D
McGuinness: “I hope it will achieve the truth, but I'm very doubtful of its ability to do so, because of a number of things. For example, the refusal of the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) to be even represented at the tribunal. The fact that the MoD have destroyed many of the rifles that the soldiers were using on the day.

We know that dozens of British Army photograph, photographers took thousands of photographs on the day, they have not been supplied to the Tribunal.

Many other documents have been withheld and of course Public Interest Immunity Certificates have been handed out to all sorts of dubious characters, some of whom may or may not even exist in the context of this whole process.

So that, coupled with, for example, the recent meeting between the British Secretary of State John Reid and, a leading judge in Dublin, set up by the Irish Government to investigate the Dublin Monaghan bombings, those people have never had documentation from the British Government. And so there is a sense within many people within the city, that the ability of the Saville Tribunal to achieve the full truth is very limited.“

Later he says: “And the big difference is that in all of those instances, for example, in instances were the IRA killed civilians, the IRA didn't set out to blacken those civilians or blacken the name of those civilians.

The difference is in Bloody Sunday is that the British State, the British military forces set out to blacken the names of the people who were murdered on Bloody Sunday. “

MP Martin McGuinness speaks to the BBC on the 30th anniversary weekend of the Bloody Sunday riots in Londonderry [Derry]

Source E
“He recounted his view of events in the Glenfada Park North area:
“A group of some 40 civilians were there, running in an effort to get away. [Soldier] H fired from the hip ... at a range of 20 yards. The bullet passed through one man and into another and they both fell, one dead and one wounded.... He then moved forward and fired again, killing the wounded man. They lay sprawled together, half on the pavement and half in the gutter. [Soldier E] shot another man at the entrance of the park, who also fell on the pavement.... I can no longer recall the order of fire or who fell first, but I do remember that when we first appeared, darkened faces, sweat and aggression, brandishing rifles, the crowd stopped immediately in their tracks, turned to face us and raised their hands. This is the way they were standing when they were shot.”
Soldier 027 said that he thought that both Corporal F and Soldier G had a preconceived notion of what they were doing. Other soldiers ran up, but did not fire because they could not find a target. Witness 027 said he could see nothing to justify the shooting.”

A 1975 statement by Witness 027

Source F
“Only one gunman appears to have pulled a pistol from his pocket in the crowd, and this man’s identity is controversial—with suggestions that agents provocateurs were active in the crowd. An anonymous witness X, who claimed in 1972 to have fired at soldiers with a carbine, has now denied doing so.

Forensic evidence claiming that those shot had lead residue, indicating they had recently handled weaponry, was discredited. The tests used could show positive results from car exhaust fumes, and, in any case, the bodies were both close to weaponry, having been shot, and were handled by soldiers who had been firing. Forensic scientist John Martin told the inquiry that this evidence had been available to the 1972 Widgery Inquiry, but it had been ignored in order to whitewash the army for the killings.

Evidence was also heard that a nail bomb was planted on one of the victims. Eyewitness reports from people who saw IRA members on the day confirmed that they took no part in events. One reported that Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein—now Northern Ireland’s education minister, and then an IRA activist—was warning local gunmen to stay away.”

By Steve James 31 December 2002

Source G
“Major General Andrew MacLennan gave evidence. He was the army commander in charge of stopping the march on the day and was deeply depressed about the outcome of Bloody Sunday. He described 1 Para as Ford’s “shock troops” and responsible for what took place.

MacLennan still believes that the march could have been safely contained. He saw his role primarily as a policing one and conceded that 1 Para ignored his specific orders not to “go down Rossville Street” by moving immediately into the Bogside, rather then being held at a “containment” line on its fringes.

Evidence of the broader political background to Bloody Sunday was given by Lord Carrington, then British defence secretary.

Grilled by lawyers, Carrington implausibly denied he knew of any plans beyond an arrest operation. He denied he knew of any plan to shoot the Derry Young Hooligans or that he had any knowledge of plans to use 1 Para.

Carrington denied that as far as the then Conservative government was concerned, Britain was in a state of war in Northern Ireland. When shown statements indicating that Heath did consider there to be a state of war, he claimed to be amazed.

Carrington insisted that the Yellow Card—the rules under which troops could shoot—“was our bible” and he offered no explanation of why 27 unarmed people came to be shot.

He did, however, explain the predicament of the Tory government. In early 1972, Northern Ireland was still ruled from Stormont, with its own prime minister, Brian Faulkner. The Heath government had decided that their best option at that point was to keep Faulkner, of the pro-British Ulster Unionist Party, in power, while attempting to militarily defeat the IRA.

By Steve James 31 December 2002

Source H
"We moved very quickly when the firing started. Their shots were highly inaccurate. I believe in fact they lost their nerve when they saw us coming in.

"Nail bombs were thrown and one man who was shot was seen to be lighting a bomb as he was shot. This is open to conjecture, but I personally saw a man with an M1 carbine rifle on the balcony of a flat. I don't believe people were shot in the back while they were running away. A lot of us do think that some of the people were shot by their own indiscriminate firing.”

Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, the paratroopers commanding officer, Tuesday February 1, 1972

Source I
Miss Bernadette Devlin said it was "bloody cold-blooded murder." Mr John Hume said it was "another Sharpeville," and he demanded the immediate withdrawal of all these "uniformed murderers." Mr Michael Canavan of the Derry Citizens' Central Council said "It was impossible to say who fired first. Personally I am sure it was the army, but it doesn't really matter. What was so terrible and so tragic was that the soldiers fired into a huge crowd of people, and fired indiscriminately at that. The death toll must show us that their firing was indiscriminate." The death toll at 7.30 pm, three hours after the shooting, was said to be 12, all men and all said to be in their mid-twenties. A thirteenth victim was reported later. The assistant secretary of the Altnagelvin Hospital, Mr L Thompson, said: "I have seen 12 bodies here that have all probably been killed by gunfire. There are 16 people in the wards. Fifteen of these have gunshot wounds and one of them is a woman. There is also a girl, named as Miss Burke, aged 18, who is seriously injured after being struck by a vehicle. I understand it was an army truck."

Simon Winchester in Londonderry Monday January 31, 1972