|
|
7 - 10 MAY 2002
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
This week the Tribunal heard from a number of civilians, including Patrick McCrudden who witnessed the shooting of Patrick Doherty and the events in the Rossville Flats car park from a flat in the Rossville Flats. Patrick Clarke set up a listening station to record army and RUC communications on Bloody Sunday. He also said that he had spoken to an Irish Government intelligence officer who had told him that one wounded person had been taken across the border to Letterkenny Hospital.
The Tribunal also heard from Ian Paisley who was issued with a subpoena to attend the proceedings, having failed to attend on previous occasions. He told the Tribunal that he had no memory of any counter-demonstration planned by the Democratic Unionist Association for Bloody Sunday.
John Press and Derek Carson described the autopsy procedures they conducted on the victims at Altnagelvin Hospital and provided additional information concerning their conclusions. The latter will continue giving his evidence in Week 58.
Paul McDaid and Kieran Gill both returned to give evidence to the Tribunal, the former on issues relating to his membership of the IRA and the latter to complete the evidence he had begun giving in Week 56. Mr Gill said that an Official IRA source had admitted to him that he had fired a gun from the doorway of the Rossville Flats at the soldiers advancing towards the barricade.
OTHER ISSUES
The Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland upheld the ruling of the Divisional Court granting screening to 20 named RUC officers, as ruled by Lord Saville.
A full transcript of the proceedings is available at http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk.
1. Paul McDaid’s evidence
Having previously given evidence before the Tribunal, Mr McDaid was recalled to answer questions relating to his criminal convictions.
1.1 questions on behalf of the tribunal
1.1.1 Criminal convictions
On 11th December 1973, Mr McDaid was convicted of causing a bomb explosion on 31st August 1972 and of possessing bomb-making materials with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment, concurrent on each count.
1.1.2 Membership of a paramilitary organisation
Mr McDaid said that he was not a member of any paramilitary organisation on Bloody Sunday, nor did he have any knowledge of the IRA at that time. On Bloody Sunday, he did not see any armed civilians nor anybody he knew to be a member of the IRA or anybody he later found out to have been a member of the IRA.
1.2 questions on behalf of the soldiers
1.2.1 Discrepancies in statements
In his statement to the Inquiry, Mr McDaid wrote that he had seen two soldiers standing next to army vehicles at the corner of the Rossville Flats, one of whom was shooting from the hip. In his 1972 statement, however, he said that he had seen a man who had been shot in the leg running away but had made no mention of seeing soldiers shooting.
Mr McDaid had also written that he had seen no armed civilians until he reached Meenan Square from whence he made his way home. He had explained that what he had meant by this statement was that Meenan Square had been his last ‘stop’ prior to going home, and that he had seen nobody armed up to and including that point, i.e., he had seen nobody armed on the day.
Mr Elias, Counsel for the soldiers, asked him whether his paramilitary past had led him to make the perceived changes to his original statement. Mr McDaid denied this suggestion; he said that he was 15 when he made his original statement and that it had been taken quickly. When giving his statement to the current Inquiry he had been able to express himself better and at greater length.
2. patrick McCRUDDEN’S EVIDENCE
Mr McCrudden did not participate in the civil rights march but went to his friend Bill Harley’s flat in Block 2 of the Rossville in order to observe it from a distance. He recalled that Mr Harley’s wife and children were in the flat and thought there might have been a few others present also.
2.1 questions on behalf of the tribunal
2.1.1 Free Derry Corner
Mr McCrudden looked out of a window in the flat towards Free Derry Corner where the crowd was gathering. As he did so, the sound of rubber bullets being fired suddenly changed to that of firing from a high-powered gun.
2.1.2 Rossville Flats car park
Having heard a shout from the bedroom, he moved into the room and looked out of the window overlooking the car park. He saw a Saracen racing across the waste ground to the east of Rossville Street, whilst people ran across the car park in panic, but did not see it knocking anybody over. The Saracen came to a halt at the entrance to the car park and soldiers jumped out of the back of the vehicle. He recalled there being approximately 15 to 20 soldiers near the Saracen, some of whom had been there prior to its arrival in the car park. All of the soldiers were armed and were carrying their guns across their chests.
He said that the soldiers began beating and arresting people. He saw a Knight of Malta trying to intervene as a soldier beat a middle-aged man. The soldier had then turned and struck the Knight of Malta with the butt of his gun before kicking him. The Knight of Malta had collapsed and disappeared from Mr McCrudden’s view and the middle-aged man had been arrested. He also heard gunfire at this time.
2.1.2.1 Jackie Duddy
Mr McCrudden saw Father Daly attending to a young boy who did not appear to be moving. He said that most people seemed afraid to go across to help, but that two people had eventually gone over to the priest.
2.1.2.2 Group of people sheltering
Mr McCrudden also saw a group of approximately 50 people sheltering behind a wall at the northeast corner of the car park. As they were huddling against the wall, he heard gunfire which appeared to be coming from Rossville Street or William Street. He said that the sound was one of individual shots being fired rather than that of an automatic weapon.
2.1.2.3 Michael Bridge
Mr McCrudden saw a young man move away from the position where Jackie Duddy was lying towards the soldiers. The young man was waving his arms and remonstrating with the soldiers and appeared to be shouting something to the effect of ‘fucking murdering bastards’ at them. He then heard two or three shots ring out and the young man span around and fell on the ground.
2.1.2.4 Father Daly’s gunman
Mr McCrudden told the Inquiry that he had seen three or four civilians, including a Knight of Malta, sheltering by the gable wall of Chamberlain Street (where Father Daly saw the civilian gunman). Although Bill Harley, Mr McCrudden’s friend, saw the civilian gunman, Mr McCrudden himself was adamant that he had not.
2.1.3 Patrick Doherty
Mr McCrudden then crossed over to the lounge window and looked out over Rossville Street where he saw the body of a man on the ground. Another man was crawling towards the body from the direction of Joseph Place. The man was just about to get a grip of the body when Mr McCrudden heard between five and ten single shots, which he felt were being fired towards the man in question. The man then retreated from the body in an attempt to protect himself from the bullets.
Mr Harley had shouted at him to get away from the window, as he believed that the shooting was coming from the city Walls. However, it was Mr McCrudden’s impression that it was coming from the direction of Glenfada Park. When he next looked out of the window, somebody had turned over the body of the man lying in the street and Mr McCrudden immediately recognised him as Patrick Doherty.
2.1.4 Chamberlain Street
In his 1972 statement, Mr McCrudden described returning to the bedroom and seeing Father Daly waving a bloodstained handkerchief as he and three other men carried the body of Jackie Duddy out of the car park. He wrote that a Saracen had blocked off Chamberlain Street and soldiers were preventing people from leaving the car park, striking anybody who attempted to get past them. He also saw people being brought out of some of the houses on Chamberlain Street by soldiers and being lined up against the wall. However, he could no longer recall much of this with any accuracy.
Mr McCrudden was also told that his friend, Bill Harley, had told the Inquiry that he had seen a group of soldiers at the end of Chamberlain Street, laughing and joking and taking photographs of one another, acting as if they were celebrating the day’s events. He told the Inquiry that he had not witnessed this scene.
2.1.5 Gunfire
Mr McCrudden told the Tribunal that he had served in the Irish Army in the 1950s. He was clear that he had only heard high-velocity weapons being fired on the day and that he had not seen any missiles being thrown at the soldiers from Block 1 of the Rossville Flats.
2.2 questions on behalf of the families and wounded
2.2.1 Paddy Doherty
Mr McCrudden was shown a picture of Mr Walsh crawling out towards Patrick Doherty and confirmed that it resembled the scene he had witnessed, save for the fact that the first time he had seen Mr Doherty, he had been lying on his front rather than his back.
2.3 questions on behalf of the soldiers
2.3.1 Gunfire
Mr McCrudden clarified that he had heard gunfire prior to seeing the soldiers disembark from the Saracen in the Rossville Flats car park.
2.3.2 Father Daly’s gunman
He reiterated that, although his friend Bill Harley had seen the gunman, he had not. He said that his friend might have mentioned it to him, but he had no recollection of this having happened. In response to Counsel’s question concerning whether it was something that people would have tended to keep quiet about, he responded that he had not seen any gunmen so had no call to keep quiet about anything.
3. Patrick clarke’s evidence
Mr Clarke was a former member of the Bogside Defence Group and recorded security force transmissions on Bloody Sunday.
3.1 questions on behalf of the tribunal
3.1.1 Magilligan march
Mr Clarke attended the march at Magilligan with John Hume in the week preceding Bloody Sunday. He witnessed the latter remonstrating with some of the soldiers over their conduct.
3.1.2 Listening station on Bloody Sunday
Mr Clarke said that listening into police and army transmissions was a national pastime at the time of Bloody Sunday. However, although he frequently listened to such transmissions, Bloody Sunday was the only occasion on which he had actually taped them. He said that he had decided to record the transmissions due to his apprehension following the march at Magilligan, and set up the listening station in his house in Jacqueline Way. He clarified that he had not set up the post at the request of the Internees Dependants’ Fund, as suggested to the Inquiry by William O’Connell.
On the day itself, Mr Clarke set up the equipment and left his 12-year old daughter in charge of it while he attended the march.
3.1.3 Rubble barricade
Upon hearing the shooting, Mr Clarke sheltered behind a wall in Joseph Place from where he saw a number of people lying near the rubble barricade. At that stage he did not realise that they had been shot and believed that they were sheltering from the bullets.
When things had quietened down, Mr Clarke made his way towards the Rossville Flats where he saw the body of Barney McGuigan. Two priests, Father Mulvey and Father Bradley, were attempting to help move the body into the back of an ambulance stationed nearby. Mr Clarke got into the ambulance and attempted to clear a space for the body.
3.1.5 Telephone calls
Mr Clarke then went into a house on the corner of St Columb’s Street as he knew there was a telephone.
3.1.5.1 Call to Altnagelvin Hospital
He called the hospital and was told that there were six people in the morgue.
3.1.5.2 Call to Rockhill Barracks in Letterkenny
He then called the Irish Army’s Rockhill Barracks in Letterkenny and spoke to Commandant McGonigal, an intelligence officer for the Irish Government whom he had met previously through his role as secretary of the Bogside Defence Committee. He explained that the committee had been set up in 1969 following the Battle of the Bogside in order to look after the needs and interests of the people in the area, but that it had been disbanded long before Bloody Sunday.
He said that Commandant McGonigal frequently visited Derry and that the Bogside Defence Committee would keep him up to date with happenings in Derry. He had met Commandant McGonigal in Lifford on the evening before Bloody Sunday to warn him of people’s apprehensions regarding the forthcoming march and to tell him that, should anything transpire on the day, the people of Derry would be glad of any assistance he could provide, such as sending ambulances to the border. Mr Clarke told the Inquiry that he was aware of wounded people being taken across the border for medical treatment prior to Bloody Sunday, but said that he had never been involved in organising this in any way.
When Mr Clarke called Commandant McGonigal on Bloody Sunday, he told him that his fears had been realised and that there were six people in the morgue and more injured. He also told him that he had heard, by word of mouth, that ambulances carrying casualties to the hospital were being stopped by the army and not allowed through. He said that Commandant McGonigal had offered to send ambulances to the border, information which Mr Clarke then passed on to people he met.
3.1.6 Casualties taken across the border
Mr Clarke had subsequently spoken to Commandant McGonigal on the Tuesday or Wednesday following Bloody Sunday and had been told that ambulances had been sent to the border and that one man had been taken to Letterkenny with a gunshot wound to the leg. Mr Clarke could not recall ever knowing whether these were military or civilian ambulances.
3.1.7 Tape recordings of security force transmissions on Bloody Sunday
Mr Clarke’s tapes were destroyed in a fire in Mr Porter’s shop but he told the Tribunal that he had listened to the tape recordings a number of times and remembered that, at one point, the person at the base station had become very agitated shouting ‘what is all this shooting? This was supposed to be a search and arrest operation’. Although the transcripts of tape recordings made by James Porter of all communications on the day do not contain any entries matching these words, Mr Clarke remained adamant that he had heard them. He said that it had given him the impression that the base station was not in control and that the Paratroopers had been taking orders from elsewhere.
3.1.8 Statements taken in 1972
Mr Clarke was involved in taking statements from eyewitnesses on behalf of the Derry Citizens’ Council, although had only personally taken one or two such statements. He took the statements in a school in Francis Street where a number of other people were also taking statements. To the best of his recollection, there had been an announcement made in the press to tell people to go to the school to give their statements.
3.2 questions on behalf of the families and wounded
3.2.1 Casualties taken across the border
Mr Clarke was shown a statement made by Joseph Hanley, the county surgeon for Donegal at the time of Bloody Sunday. In his statement, Mr Hanley states that no patients were taken to Letterkenny as a result of Bloody Sunday. He also pointed out that Seamus Cusack had bled to death on his way to Letterkenny Hospital in 1969 and that this had deterred people from going to that hospital in similar circumstances. However, Mr Clarke remained adamant that Commandant McGonigal had told him that a man with a leg wound had been taken from the border to the hospital.
3.2.2 Warning that people would be killed on Bloody Sunday
Mr Clarke was asked about a conversation he had with John Kelly and Mickey McKinney (the family liaison workers for the Bloody Sunday Trust) in 1999. During this conversation he allegedly told them that he had received a telephone call from a senior civil servant in London on the Tuesday before Bloody Sunday, telling him that the Paratroopers were to be sent in on the day and that people would be killed.
Mr Clarke confirmed that he had been told that the Paratroopers were to be sent in to deal with the march and that people would be killed, but said that he could no longer recall who had called him to impart the information. He could not recall telling John Kelly and Mickey McKinney that it had been a senior civil servant, nor could he recall saying that he was not prepared to reveal the name of the person in question as he wanted to protect his source and their family. He also denied having told them that he had imparted the information to Paddy Hart TD on the Friday before Bloody Sunday.
Mr Clarke denied that his decision to tape security force transmissions had been prompted by the ‘tip off’ he had received and said that he had not included any reference to the ‘tip off’ in his statement to the Inquiry as he had not deemed it important.
3.3 questions on behalf of the soldiers
3.3.1 Tape recordings of security force communications on Bloody Sunday
Mr Clarke said that he believed his tapes to be exact duplicates of those made by James Porter on Bloody Sunday and for this reason, he had not offered them to the Widgery Tribunal.
He said that he had not been manning walkie-talkies on Bloody Sunday, but had simply set up a portable radio in his house, hooked up to a microphone.
3.3.2 Casualties taken across the border
Mr Clarke reiterated that he had been told about the man with the gun shot wound being taken to Letterkenny Hospital by Commandant McGonigal. He agreed that one of the reasons why he did not come forward sooner with the information was that he presumed that other people would have known about it and would have told the Tribunal about it.
3.3.3 Ambulance into which Barney McGuigan’s body was put
Mr Clarke was shown a film taken a few moments before Mr McGuigan’s body was put into the ambulance. It depicted the two priests and other people, sheltering beside the ambulance and seemingly passing an object from one person to the next. Although Mr Clarke could not recall an object having been passed around, he presumed that it was the Oil of Chrism, used when performing the Last Rites.
Mr Clarke told the Tribunal that he had seen the ambulance’s ‘final load’ before it drove off for the hospital and that he had not seen a red-haired man within it prior to its departure.
3.4 further questions on behalf of the tribunal
3.4.1 Warning that people would be killed on Bloody Sunday
Mr Clarke told the Tribunal that the person who had called him had been English but that the call had come from Northern Ireland. He repeated that he did not think that the man had been a representative of the civil service or the army and could not recall from where the man might have got his information.
4. dr ian paisley’s evidence
Dr Paisley is the co-founder of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and, at the time of Bloody Sunday was a Member of Parliament in both Westminster and Stormont.
4.1 questions on behalf of the inquiry
4.1.1 Ban on marches and parades
Dr Paisley was staunchly opposed to the ban on marches, introduced in August 1971 in the wake of internment, as he felt that it targeted traditional parades in particular. He said that his stance was that, if the ban was in place, the security forces should take firm and decisive action to prevent all marches going ahead. This firm action, he argued at the time, should include the use of lead bullets instead of rubber bullets against rioters.
However, Mr Paisley also told the Inquiry that, in the run up to Bloody Sunday, he had been urging his supporters to defy the ban on traditional parades, and had stated publicly that he would be taking part in marches well before the twelfth of July.
4.1.2 Counter-demonstration planned for Bloody Sunday
Dr Paisley told the Inquiry that he had not been aware of the plans by the Foyle Democratic Unionist Association (DUA) to hold a counter-demonstration in the Guildhall Square in Derry on Bloody Sunday, although he added that he would have agreed with their stance. He stated that he knew nothing about the cancellation of the march or of any reassurances given to the DUA.
4.1.3 Superintendent Frank Lagan
Dr Paisley was questioned about a speech he made in Stormont on 27th January 1972 in which he said: “the vast majority of the Loyalist police in Londonderry have no confidence whatsoever in their police officer, Mr Lagan… This is a man who actually hindered his officers being allowed to take their guns out of police stations... The background to Mr Lagan’s pedigree is of militant Republicanism… He was a person who was always colloguing with persons who had set themselves up against the forces of law and order in Londonderry”.
Dr Paisley refused to comment on or explain what exactly he had been accusing Superintendent Lagan of, saying that it needed no further explanation and that it was covered by parliamentary privilege. He said that he had been briefed accurately by police officers in Derry, and stood by his comments. He also added that there had been no uproar when he had made the statements, a fact he felt underscored the veracity of his charges.
4.1.4 Speech in Parliament following Bloody Sunday
Dr Paisley chose to read out the speech he had made in the House of Commons and in Stormont following Bloody Sunday, in which he had stated: “as a Christian minister I have every sympathy with every father or mother who loses a son or with any boy or girl who loses parents in any circumstances… But no excuse can or must ever be made for those who fall in opposition to the rule of law. If they fall it is a tragedy, but they cannot be mourned as heroes nor can their relatives expect the sympathy of everyone simply because these people had put themselves in a position that was bout to lead to tragedy”.
4.2 questions on behalf of the families and wounded
4.2.1 DUP
Dr Paisley agreed that the DUP was one of the few political parties in Ireland, north and south, that had never had a split nor a leadership crisis. He said that, at the time of Bloody Sunday, the party had four MPs (including himself) and one Senator.
4.2.2 Contacts within the police force and civil service
Dr Paisley agreed that he had supporters within the police force and civil service who would pass on information to him. He did not agree that these people were acting in breach of their duties by passing on information about events that they were uncomfortable with. He also denied having been told by his sources about the security measures planned for Bloody Sunday, with regard to the NICRA march or the DUA counter-demonstration.
4.2.3 The civil rights movement
Dr Paisley said that he thought that the civil rights marches were part of the overall campaign to destroy Ulster. He refused to comment further on his general attitude towards the civil rights movement, but said that he stood by his 1971 remarks when he stated: “let no-one say that they are interested in civil rights, for every demand the original civil rights movement made has been met by this government. If they were a bona fide organisation they would declare themselves redundant, but we find an increasing scale in their demands…. This parade (a parade planned for Newry) is but a sanctuary of human bodies that still provide a coverage for IRA terrorists”.
4.2.4 Policing marches and parades
Mr Lavery QC read out a number of contemporaneous press reports and extracts from Hansard which underscored Dr Paisley’s stance regarding the policing of banned non-traditional parades and which Counsel contended demonstrated the pressure Dr Paisley was putting upon the Government and the security forces to deal with the marches in a more heavy-handed manner.
It was Mr Lavery’s contention that the DUA’s policy of staging counter-demonstrations on the same day as civil rights marches, coupled with Dr Paisley’s threats of a ‘Protestant backlash’, played a decisive part in the decision by the security forces to use harsher methods in policing the civil rights marches. Dr Paisley neither accepted nor denied these contentions.
4.2.5 Lead bullets
Mr Lavery read out an extract from the Irish News in October 1971 in which Dr Paisley was quoted as saying: “In Belfast, the Army is still using rubber bullets. It is time they threw them away and got the lead bullets into action against the enemy”. Mr Paisley told the Inquiry that he was merely backing the call by the GOC (General Tuzo) for real bullets to be used against petrol bombers. Dr Paisley clarified that he had been calling for them to be wounded and not killed.
4.2.6 Ban on parades
Dr Paisley said that he had opposed the ban on parades as it affected traditional parades, such as the Apprentice Boys parade and Orange Order marches, and as such was undemocratic. He was read a section from a speech he gave in the House of Commons five days before Bloody Sunday, stating: “Let no member of the [Stormont] Government tell us that the law must never be broken. Their whole history rests on an effectual defiance of Westminster laws… When the destiny of one’s country is jeopardised, one must follow one’s conscience. One must do what one believes to be in the interests of one’s country”.
Mr Lavery suggested that the above-quoted speech contained an implied threat to the Government that loyalists would take matters into their own hands and act unlawfully if the march was not dealt with appropriately.
Dr Paisley told the Tribunal that he had met with General Tuzo to express his dissatisfaction with the ban on parades and that the General had told him that if the ‘Protestants come out we will hammer them into the ground’. Nevertheless, contemporaneous records also report a very large meeting having taken place on the Shankill Road in Belfast on 24th January 1972 when loyalists decided that they would not accept the ban on parades. Mr Mansfield asked him whether, given this warning from the GOC, he had been concerned about the planned counter-demonstration for Bloody Sunday, fearing for the safety and well being of members of his organisation. Counsel also suggested that the counter-demonstration planned for Bloody Sunday had been in fact the first public test of the resolve of the DUA vis-à-vis the ban. Dr Paisley reiterated that he had not orchestrated the counter-demonstration in any way.
4.2.6 DUA counter-demonstration planned for Bloody Sunday
Dr Paisley reiterated that he had had no hand in organising the counter-demonstration planned for Bloody Sunday, but agreed that he would not have been opposed to it. He did not agree that these counter-demonstrations invariably led to violence.
He was read a section from the Cameron Report stating: “We are left in no doubt that the interventions of Dr Paisley and Major Bunting in Londonderry and Armagh… were not designed merely to register a peaceful protest against those engaged in civil rights or People’s Democracy activities, however much they profess the contrary. It is our considered opinion that… their true purpose was either to cause the legal prohibition of the proposed civil rights march or People’s Democracy demonstrations by the threat of a counter-demonstration, or, if this move failed, to harass, hinder and if possible break up the demonstration”. Dr Paisley said that he utterly rejected the Cameron Report as it was an unsworn Inquiry, riddled with falsehoods.
He said that he would have encouraged people to declare themselves against the civil rights marchers who wanted to destroy Northern Ireland but remained adamant that he had no advance knowledge of the counter-demonstration (called as a prayer meeting) planned for the Guildhall Square on Bloody Sunday. However, he said that he would not have been opposed to the prayer meeting as he thought that it was a very good thing to pray.
He said that he would not be accused by a lying press and republican propagandists of doing something he did not do, adding that he would not have made any deals with the government as Edward Heath, the British Prime Minister of the time, was his inveterate political enemy. He also denied that he or any of his party members had met with Commander Anderson prior to Bloody Sunday to discuss the cancellation of the proposed counter-demonstration.
4.2.8 Attitude towards the no-go areas and street disorder
Dr Paisley said that he had raised his concerns about the situation on the streets with Westminster politicians (including Ted Heath and Reggie Maudling) and Stormont officials. He had also spoken with General Tuzo and General Ford. He said that it had become apparent by January 1972 that none of the stringent measures introduced to deal with the security situation (such as mandatory sentences of six months for rioters) were working and that, if anything, the situation was getting worse.
He said that none of the officials that he had approached concerning the security situation had given him any idea as to what strategy they would adopt next to deal with the situation and said that, in his belief, there was a vacuum at the heart of Government in terms of knowing what to do.
4.2.9 Third Force / Civil Defence Force
Dr Paisley was asked about a body called the ‘Civil Defence Force’ or ‘Third Force’ referenced in contemporaneous newspapers and books concerning the history of Northern Ireland. He was read a passage from Simon Winchester’s book entitled In Holy Terror stating: “entwined in the demands for police guns and boycotts of Kerrygold came new and more worrying threats from the Protestant side for the establishment of a so-called ‘Third Force’ to protect the country against the ravages of the IRA in the way the B Specials had… The first such force--although its leaders said, correctly was unarmed--was Ian Paisley’s Civilian Defence Corps, announced in early September”. Dr Paisley agreed that there had been a call for people to protect their homes, children and businesses but said that he had never heard of the force prior to being given the extract from Simon Winchester’s book by the Tribunal.
5. Dr john press’s evidence
Dr Press was the Assistant State Pathologist for Northern Ireland at the time of Bloody Sunday. He performed post-mortem examinations on four of the deceased, namely Gerald Donaghy, Michael McDaid, John Young and William Nash.
5.1 questions on behalf of the tribunal
5.1.1 Altnagelvin mortuary
Dr Press arrived at the mortuary before his colleagues Dr Carson and Professor Marshall. He could no longer recall the exact circumstances in the mortuary, but presumed that the bodies would have been lying in the body storage and preparation room, adjacent to the post-mortem room, or in the chapel. He said that they would have been lying on the floor or on trolleys, wrapped in sheets or some other form of material.
He said that it was not usual for bodies to have been left on the floor of the chapel, but that there was only one post-mortem table and that the large volume of bodies would not have fitted into the room.
Dr Press presumed that the police would have controlled access to the mortuary and that only hospital staff would have had access to the mortuary where the post-mortems were being conducted.
5.1.2 Cross-contamination of the victims’ clothing
Dr Press said that at least three people would have come into contact with the clothing of the deceased: the mortuary technician who assisted him in removing the clothing of the victims and the Scenes of Crime Officer who folded each item of clothing and placed it in a sealed plastic bag. He could no longer recall any of the precautions taken to prevent contamination of the clothing.
5.1.3 Post-mortem reports
5.1.3.1 Bullet track angles
Dr Press explained that the bullet track angles recorded in the post-mortem reports were only approximations, measured by inserting a 12-inch probe into the entrance and exit wounds. He said that it was possible to estimate the angle from which the person was shot if the victim had been standing erect when shot, but that this was more difficult if the victim had been bending over.
5.3.1.2 ‘Opinion’ sections in the post-mortem reports
Dr Press told the Inquiry that it was standard procedure in murder cases to write an opinion relating to the autopsies, adding that in non-criminal cases this section was called a ‘commentary’ rather than an ‘opinion’. He said that the sections would have been written in the knowledge that they were likely to be used in a legal context, as they thought that there was a possibility that somebody would be charged in relation to the deaths.
5.3.1.3 ‘History’ sections in the post-mortem reports
Dr Press believed that Professor Marshall had compiled the history section that was appended to each of the victims’ reports. He explained that the ‘history’ was purely for information purposes and would not have been admissible in court.
5.3.1.4 Report concerning Michael McDaid
The Tribunal is also in possession of further notes appended to the report concerning Michael McDaid, stating: “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.” Dr Press explained that the RUC constable who had identified the victim’s body to him would have provided him with the information concerning the allegation of close-range shooting.
Dr Press said that, in cases of close range shooting from a distance of less than one foot, there would typically be scorch marks from flame from the barrel of the gun. If somebody had been shot from a range of less than six feet, he would have also have expected to find some soiling caused by soot from the discharge. However, he added that, in some cases of close range shooting, there would be no visible marks on the body, and one would have to examine the clothing of the deceased to ascertain the distance from which the victim had been shot.
5.3.1.5 Report concerning William Nash
Dr Press was asked to consider whether he might have misidentified the entry and exit wounds in his 1972 report concerning William Nash, due to the level of abrasion surrounding the wound in the victim’s back which he had identified as an exit wound. He said that, although abrasions were typically associated with entry wounds as opposed to exit wounds, he remained convinced that his original identification had been accurate. He thought that the abrasion was most likely caused by clothing pulled tight against the victim’s skin, causing what is termed a ‘shored wound’.
5.3.1.6 Report concerning Gerald Donaghy
In his 1972 report, Dr Press wrote that “the character of the entrance wound and the degree of penetration would indicate that the velocity of the bullet was low and that it was not travelling nose-on when it struck, possibly as a result of its having passed through or having been deflected by some object in its path”.
Having been provided with information by the Tribunal concerning the nature of the bullet retrieved from the victim (a 7.62 NATO rifle bullet with firing marks consistent with having been fired by a British Army self-loading rifle) and of the damage to the bullet, Dr Press told the Tribunal that the bullet almost certainly hit a hard object prior to striking Gerald Donaghy.
5.2 questions on behalf of the families and wounded
5.2.1 Cross-contamination of the clothing of the deceased
Dr Press confirmed that he had not been questioned at the Widgery Tribunal about the precautions taken to prevent cross-contamination of the clothing, explaining that the risks of cross-contamination would not have been understood as fully as they are today.
He did not think that PC McCormack, who had been present throughout the autopsy procedures, had worn any kind of overall. He also believed that he himself had worn the same overall for all of the autopsies he conducted.
5.2.2 ‘Shoot through’ theory
Counsel for the families asked Dr Press to comment on a theory put forward by Counsel for the soldiers, suggesting that the bullet that hit Gerard McKinney had travelled on and lodged itself in the body of Gerald Donaghy. Given the fact that the bullet track in the body of Gerard McKinney suggested an upward angle and that the track in the body of Gerard Donaghy was indicative of a downward angle, Dr Press thought that the theory would only be possible had Gerald Donaghy been leaning forward at an extreme angle at the time he was shot.
5.2.3 Report concerning William Nash
Dr Press was questioned concerning the abrasions identified on the neck of William Nash’s body in the 1972 autopsy report. He agreed that the abrasions were consistent with the body having been manhandled after death.
5.2.4 Clothing of James Wray
James Wray’s body was the only body to be received unclothed by Dr Press’s colleague, Dr Carson. Dr Press was asked whether he could shed any light on the matter. He said that, although the normal procedure was to remove the clothing as part of the autopsy procedure, he might have been asked by the police if they could remove the victim’s clothing prior to the actual autopsy in order to speed up the procedure.
5.3 questions on behalf of the soldiers
5.3.1 Michael McDaid and William Nash
In his 1972 reports, Dr Press identified a bullet track of approximately 45 degrees in the case of both Michael McDaid and William Nash. In the latter case he further identified the track as having a downward inclination. Dr Press believed that he had been told that both bodies had been found close together and agreed that he had not attached much significance at the time to the similarities in the bullet track angles in both victims.
6. Dr derek carson
At the time of Bloody Sunday, Dr Carson was Deputy State Pathologist for Northern Ireland, having held the position since 1961. On Monday 31st January 1972, he carried out autopsies on six of the deceased, namely Gerard McKinney, Hugh Gilmore, Patrick Doherty, William McKinney, Jackie Duddy and James Wray.
6.1 questions on behalf of the tribunal
6.1.1 Altnagelvin mortuary
Dr Carson told the Tribunal that there had been only one autopsy suite at Altnegelvin Hospital and that if two autopsies were being performed by different doctors at the same time, the second doctor would have used a portable trolley for his examination. He could not recall whether both examinations would have taken place in the same room.
Dr Carson also said that the mortuary would not have been equipped with sufficient refrigeration facilities to deal with the volume of bodies and that, therefore, a number of the bodies would have been left unrefrigerated over night. He had not seen the bodies until shortly before conducting his examinations and could not provide any detail regarding how they had been stored over night.
6.1.2 Swabs taken of the hands of the deceased
Dr Carson could not specifically recall swabs being taken in the case of the Bloody Sunday victims, but said that, generally, such swabs would have been taken by the Scenes of Crimes Officer, prior to the body being undressed.
6.1.3 Clothing of the deceased
Dr Carson said that he had received four of the bodies clothed and was present when the clothing was removed, as was the normal procedure, but could not explain why the clothing of Gerard McKinney and James Wray had been removed prior to the commencement of the autopsy. He said that there were no specific precautions in place to prevent cross-contamination of the clothing.
6.1.4 Autopsy report concerning Hugh Gilmore
In the case of Hugh Gilmore, Mr Shepherd and Mr Callaghan, the Inquiry’s specialists, believe that Mr Gilmore may have been hit by two bullets, the first traversing his arm and the second traversing his trunk. Dr Carson disagreed with this interpretation, believing all four wounds on the victim’s body (one in the arm, two in the chest and one in the right side) to have been caused by one bullet which entered the body through the arm and exited through the right side. He based his interpretation on the nature of the wound on the victim’s right side, which he said did not have the characteristics of an entrance wound, and on what he perceived as a common sense theory, namely that wounds to the trunk would also often involve the arm. He also added that, had Hugh Gilmore been struck by two bullets, they would have had to have been fired from opposing locations.
Dr Carson wrote in his evidence to the Inquiry: “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”. However, upon questioning by Counsel, he agreed that there was a possibility that if Mr Gilmore had been running when he was shot, a bullet could have struck his forearm, extended in front of the trunk of his body, without continuing into his trunk and that, a few moments later before he had collapsed, a second bullet could have struck the trunk of his body from a different direction. Counsel also suggested that, due to the mobility of the human body and the ability to turn one’s body or arm very quickly, it was quite possible for two bullets to be fired within a space of a few seconds from the same direction, and for them to appear to have been fired from opposite directions.
Dr Carson was also told that some of the evidence before the Tribunal suggested that Hugh Gilmore had been shot in the arm at the rubble barricade and had then attempted to run towards Block 1 of the Rossville Flats (approximately 20 yards) where he was shot in the trunk. Dr Carson said that this version of events did not correspond with his interpretation of the four wounds sustained by the victim, but said that it would have been possible for Mr Gilmore to have run 20 yards, despite having sustained a gunshot wound to the arm.
6.1.5 Autopsy report concerning William McKinney
William McKinney also sustained gunshot wounds to the arm and trunk, which Dr Carson also believed to have been caused by a single bullet, entering through the victim’s back, exiting through his chest before re-entering and re-exiting through his arm. He said that the wound to the forearm did not have the appearance of a clean entry wound, the bullet having almost certainly been damaged and rendered unstable due to its passage through the victim’s body. He agreed that the bullet might have been damaged by some other means, but believed that the ‘one bullet theory’ was more likely than the ‘two bullet theory’.
Dr Carson was told that the Tribunal’s specialists felt that both the one bullet and two bullet theories were equally plausible in this case and that they felt that it was not really possible to choose between them.
6.1.6 Autopsy report concerning James Wray
In the case of James Wray, Dr Carson had found that the victim had been shot by two bullets, both of which entered via the right hand side of his body and exited on the left hand side. He had concluded that James Wray had possibly been shot twice by bullets from the same gun, the second of which hit him as he was falling.
One of the exit wounds, situated on the left shoulder, shows evidence of ‘shoring’, indicating that the left shoulder was in contact with a firm surface at the time the bullet struck or that the victim’s clothing was pulled tight around him. The Tribunal’s experts concluded that the most likely explanation was that James Wray was lying on the ground on his left side when he was shot for the second time. Dr Carson agreed that the exit wound had all the hallmarks of a shored wound but felt that there was not enough evidence to suggest that James Wray had been shot whilst lying on the ground. He said that he had come across similar shored wounds caused simply by tight clothing. However, he agreed that it could not be ruled out as a theory and that there was no determinative proof to his own conclusion that the James Wray had been shot by two bullets from the same gun, fired in quick succession.
6.2 questions on behalf of the families and wounded
6.2.1 Autopsy report concerning Hugh Gilmore
Dr Carson recalled the presence of three local doctors during the autopsy procedures, but did not think he had ever known that their presence had been requested by the Catholic Primate of Ireland.
Counsel asked him how a significant factor leading to his conclusion that Mr Gilmore had been shot by a single bullet, namely that one of the wounds (which the Tribunal’s experts have suggested might be a second entry wound) had a ‘split’ appearance, atypical of an entrance wound, had only been added to the autopsy report after the departure of the three GP observers. He was also told that one of these observers, Dr McClean, had expressed surprise in his statement to the Inquiry at the ‘one bullet theory’ which Dr Carson had reached in the case of Hugh Gilmore, after the doctor’s departure. Dr Carson said that it was usual practice to insert corrections and additional details into the initial report dictated to a note-taker during the actual autopsy procedure and that there was nothing sinister or out of the ordinary in his practices on Bloody Sunday.
6.2.2 Photographs taken of William McKinney
In relation to William McKinney, the Tribunal is in possession of colour photographs taken by the army and of black and white photographs taken as part of the autopsy procedure. Dr Carson confirmed that he had started the autopsy at approximately 7:30 pm on Monday 31st January and that, during the autopsy, photographs were taken at his direction by a number of police officers. He said that he had never known that photographs had been taken in the early hours of the morning by the army, nor that the army had even gained access to the mortuary prior to the performance of the autopsy procedures.
Dr Carson said that, according to the basic preservation of evidence rules, bodies would normally be kept secured in the form and position in which they were admitted to the mortuary until the autopsy team, consisting of the pathologist, the Scenes of Crime officer and the police, had gathered for the autopsy. In his experience as a pathologist in Northern Ireland, he was not aware of any other case when the army had taken pictures of the body prior to the autopsy procedure.
In the army photograph, possibly taken at approximately 3:00 am, there is a considerable amount of blood around William McKinney’s face and nose, whereas on the black and white photographs, there is no evidence of blood. Dr Carson could not offer an explanation for this fact, but speculated that the blood might have been wiped away to ensure clear visibility of the face. He said that, when he first saw the body, there had been no blood visible.
It also appeared from the army photograph that the body was lying on the floor and that the clothing of the deceased had been disturbed to allow the photographer to take pictures of the wounds. Dr Carson said that clothing would only usually be disturbed if there were a question of the victim still being alive.
6.2.3 Patrick Doherty
6.2.3.1 Position of Patrick Doherty at the time he was shot
In his autopsy report, Dr Carson found that Patrick Doherty had been killed due to a single gunshot. He wrote that it would have been “virtually impossible for the deceased to have sustained the wound whilst standing erect at ground level. He must either have been standing at a height when the bullet would have come from below, behind him and to his right, or bending forwards or lying at ground level, when the bullet would have come from behind and to his right”.
Dr Carson said that the most probable position was that Patrick Doherty had been on the ground, bending forwards, at the time he was shot. He further agreed that the examination of the victim’s clothing and eye-witness accounts of the shooting also supported this theory.
6.2.3.2 Photographs of body
In his evidence to the Widgery Tribunal, Dr Carson had said that there were no photographs available of the entrance wound. He had been led to understand that the photographs taken had not come out due to a technical hitch with the camera operated by the RUC. However, the Tribunal is in possession of a series of police photographs, two of which clearly depict the entrance wound on the body of Mr Doherty. Dr Carson confirmed that he had never seen the photographs before.
6.2.3.3 ‘History’ section of autopsy report
Dr Carson said that the detailed information contained within the ‘History’ section of the report, providing details of the victim’s medical history and the alleged circumstances in which he was shot, would almost certainly have been telephoned through to the department by the police some time after the completion of the autopsy.
Dr Carson will give the remainder of his evidence in Week 58
7.
Kieran Gill’s evidence (continued
from Week 56)
7.1 questions on behalf of the tribunal (continued)
7.1.1 Gunman near St Columb’s church
After leaving St Columb’s Wells, Mr Gill met Tom Cassidy, the then Editor of the Derry Journal, and a number of other press representatives all of whom decided to make their way back to the City Hotel. As they cut through the ground of St Columb’s church, a man at the top of the steps leading up to the church fired several shots from an automatic or semi-automatic rifle from mid-chest above their heads. This incident has been corroborated by the evidence of fellow media representatives Nigel Wade, Simon Winchester, Tom Cassidy and Anthony Fry.
7.1.2 Irish Press article of 31st January 1972
Mr Gill wired his article to Dublin on the evening of Bloody Sunday. The article which appeared was published under his by-line, but Mr Gill said that others in Derry would also have telephoned information directly to Dublin and that this would have been incorporated into the published article.
Mr Gill believed that he had got the information in the article relating to the IRA from the Press Association and from Tom Cassidy.
7.1.3 Work with The Sunday Times’ reporters
Mr Gill told the Inquiry that he had assisted Sunday Times and Insight Team journalists regarding local knowledge, but that he had no formal relationship with The Sunday Times at the time of Bloody Sunday. His assistance at the time was merely part of the widespread sharing of information by reporters in the days following Bloody Sunday.
7.1.4 Vincent Browne’s article for The Sunday Press
Mr Gill said that he had not been the source of information relating to the IRA in Vincent Browne’s article for The Sunday Press.
7.1.5 OIRA gunfire from the doorway of the Rossville Flats
Mr Gill told the Tribunal that during the coverage of the Widgery Inquiry he became friendly with Peter Pringle of the Sunday Times Insight Team and that they had both pooled information relating to Bloody Sunday.
7.1.5.1 Wounding of Alexander Nash
Mr Bennett, a consultant surgeon at Altnagelvin, had formed the theory that Alexander Nash had been wounded by a low velocity bullet due to the minimal level of muscle destruction caused by the gunshot he sustained. Although the Bloody Sunday Tribunal’s own experts state that, on the evidence available, no comment could be made concerning the nature of the bullet which struck Alex Nash, the Widgery Tribunal had concluded that he had been “hit by a civilian firing haphazardly in the general direction of the soldiers without exposing himself to take proper aim”.
7.1.5.2 Provisional IRA (PIRA) source
He said that he and Peter Pringle had decided to pursue the theory of Alex Nash being shot by a civilian and had gone to Barney McFadden’s house in Stanley’s Walk, Derry, which was known as a place to make contact with the PIRA. He said that a PIRA member had given them the name of a member of the Official IRA (OIRA) who allegedly fired a gun on Bloody Sunday.
Mr Gill refused to name his source for confidentiality reasons.
7.1.5.3 OIRA admission
He told the Inquiry that he and Peter Pringle had found out the OIRA man’s address and had gone to his house to interview him. Mr Gill had recognised the man immediately as being associated with the OIRA. The man allegedly admitted that he had fired a revolver around the door of the Rossville Flats, after the army had fired between 100 to 150 rounds. He had told them that there were people lying dead in front of the flats and that people were afraid that the soldiers would enter the flats and continue shooting. He had therefore put his hand around the door and fired three or four shots up Rossville Street in an attempt to make the soldiers stay away. Mr Gill said that they had told the man that he might have shot Alex Nash, a suggestion at which he appeared horrified.
Mr Gill said that the interview had been conducted by him and Mr Pringle and that it had lasted no longer than a few minutes. He said that it was common practice not to make notes on the spot and that neither journalist had done so. He believed that he subsequently filed a short story concerning the matter as a memo to the group news editor, but could not recall whether it had ever been used.
7.1.5.4 Soldiers’ evidence
The evidence before Widgery of a person firing a revolver or handgun from the doorway of the Rossville Flats came from soldiers, in particular Soldier U who described seeing “a hand appearing from the open door of the flats with a pistol in it and the pistol fired two quick shots. The first hit the ground a few feet before the barricade, ricocheted and appeared to hit a man of about 45 years [Alex Nash] in the arm… The second shot appeared to hit the youth [William Nash] in the head”.
7.1.5.5 Corroborating evidence for alleged OIRA admission
Mr Gill was told that there was no evidence from non-soldiers of a handgun being fired from the position, nor did such evidence appear in the Insight article or in the book subsequently published by Mr Pringle and Mr Jacobson (former members of the Insight team). He was therefore asked whether he could be confused in his recollection as to the account given by the man. He responded that he was not confused in any way.
7.1.5.6 Subsequent contact with OIRA source
Mr Gill provided a second statement to the Inquiry in which he detailed his recent efforts to locate the sources mentioned in his initial statement. He said that he had managed to locate the OIRA man in question who refused to relieve him of his pledge of confidentiality. The man acknowledged that he had spoken with Mr Gill in 1972 but denied ever having shot a revolver from the door of the Rossville Flats and said that Mr Gill was mistaken in his recollection. Nevertheless, Mr Gill maintained that the account which he gave in his original statement was accurate and correct.
7.2 questions on behalf of the families and wounded
7.2.1 OIRA gunfire from the doorway of the Rossville Flats
Mr Gill denied Counsel’s suggestion that he was mistaken or confused with regard to his recollection of the conversation with the OIRA member. He was informed that Mr Pringle had not told the Tribunal of any such conversation with a member of the OIRA.
Mr Gill said that, in the overall context of Bloody Sunday, the admission had not been deemed as overly significant by his paper or by the Insight Team, thereby not featuring in their newspaper articles of the time. Counsel took issue with this statement, arguing that the issue of IRA gunfire had clearly been a matter of some significance for the Sunday Times Insight Team.
In his article, Mr Pringle had written: “there is persuasive though not conclusive evidence that a pistol appeared at the barricade and was used”. It was his evidence to the Tribunal that this information had come from Soldier U and Soldier P’s testimony before the Widgery Tribunal. Mr Pringle had also told the Tribunal that he had found only one dubious source confirming the army’s account of firing from the Rossville Flats, and that this source had placed the gunman on the fifth floor of the flats rather than in the doorway.
Despite the evidence given by Mr Pringle to the Tribunal and despite the absence of any reference to an interview with an OIRA source admitting to having fired from the doorway in any of Mr Pringle’s contemporaneous notes, Mr Gill remained adamant that his recollection was accurate. However, Mr Pringle had not been asked directly about this alleged interview when he gave evidence to the Inquiry, as the Tribunal had not been in receipt of Mr Gill’s statement at that stage. Counsel suggested that there might be a need to recall Mr Pringle to ask him about the matter in more detail.
7.2.2 Rubble barricade
In the part of his evidence given in Week 56, Mr Gill told the Inquiry that he had been standing on the rubble barricade watching the rioting in William Street as the army vehicles entered the Bogside. He told the Tribunal that he had not heard any gunfire before the vehicles drew to a halt and that there was no rioting at the barricade. However, within seconds of the army’s arrival, live rounds were fired in his direction.
As Mr Gill turned to step down from the barricade, he felt a bullet pass within inches of where he had been standing. He said that he had not been carrying a camera or anything else that might have aroused suspicion.
7.2.3 Course of events witnessed on Bloody Sunday
It would appear from his evidence to the Tribunal that Mr Gill entered Barrier 14 along with some soldiers, made his way through the Bogside, stopping to discuss the presence of IRA members with eyewitnesses, before arriving at the rubble barricade approximately 10 minutes before the army vehicles entered the Bogside. Lord Saville told Mr Gill that, according to a vast amount of evidence heard thus far and to the film footage on the day, there was only a delay of seconds between the foot soldiers’ entry into the Bogside and that of the army vehicles. He suggested that Mr Gill might be confused in his recollection of the day. Mr Gill responded that he did not believe that he was confused but that his recollection might indeed be proven inaccurate by footage of the day.
7.3 questions on behalf of OIRA 1 –5 and another IRA member
7.3.1 Gunfire
Mr Gill confirmed the evidence he had given in Week 56 that, after having entered the Bogside, he had gone to Eden Place where he had heard a shot being fired. He said that he had initially been unable to identify whether it was a civilian or military shot, but had subsequently overheard a conversation in Colombcille Court confirming that the shot had been fired by a civilian with a rifle.
Mr Gill did not know whether he had heard the shot prior to the shootings of Damien Donaghy and John Johnson, as he only found out about their being wounded on the evening of Bloody Sunday. However, he believed that a shot had been fired at an army observation post and that they had been hit by return fire.
He said that, to the best of his recollection, there had been a gap of approximately 20 minutes between the shot he heard from the direction of Columbcille Court and the army fire towards the rubble barricade.
7.4 questions on behalf of the soldiers
7.4.1 Colombcille Court
Mr Gill told the Inquiry that when he reached Colombcille Court, there were approximately 20 to 25 people present and that he had overheard a conversation between some of the people who were saying that a man had fired a rifle, that others had unsuccessfully attempted to disarm the man and that he had left the vicinity. He said that nobody had suggested that anyone had attempted to persuade the gunman to continue shooting.
7.4.2 Rubble barricade
Mr Gill said that he was standing on the rubble barricade in Rossville Street when army vehicles arrived in the street and soldiers began taking up positions in Kells Walk. As he turned from the barricade, a volley of approximately six shots rang out, from the direction of the deployed soldiers. These were the first high velocity shots he heard on the day.
To the best of his recollection, there were approximately 200 people in the vicinity of the barricade, of which around 10 or 12 were standing on or in front of it. He had seen one person fall, and was aware at the time that a second person had been hit.
He was read evidence given by a photographer, Liam Mailey, who was also at the barricade and who said that he had heard three shots of a lower calibre than those fired by the army, from the direction of Kells Walk. He said that he could not confirm or support the evidence as he had been running for safety and would not have distinguished between high and low velocity shots. However, he said that he had not seen any civilian with a gun or a nail bomb and had seen no explosions of any description.
Nevertheless, it was also Mr Gill’s testimony that he believed that it had been reasonably common currency in Derry that there had been IRA involvement of some kind during and after the shootings at the rubble barricade.
7.5 Tribunal’s decision regarding the disclosure of sources
Mr Gill was not ordered to disclose his sources, but the Tribunal alerted him to the fact that he might be called again in the future and asked to divulge them.
SUMMARY OF
PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday 7th: Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3
Wednesday 8th: Paragraphs 4 and 5
Thursday 9th: Paragraphs 6 and 7
For Peace Justice & Human Rights
