The Soldiers’ Statements

Abstract

One of the most striking features of the Widgery Report is the extent to which it relied on the self-serving testimony of the soldiers. It is to be expected, of course, that the tribunal of inquiry would have accepted and acted upon the soldiers’ testimony if it was satisfied that that testimony was credible and reliable. By the same token it is to be expected that the tribunal would have accepted and acted upon civilian testimony and other material evidence which was found to be credible and reliable. Where evidence from these respective sources conflicted, despite appearing to be both credible and reliable, it is to be expected that the tribunal would have looked to independent sources of evidence to help establish the facts. A critical weakness of the Widgery Tribunal, however, is the fact that it clung stubbornly to its belief in the integrity of the soldiers and the veracity of their testimony, despite the existence of a substantial body of evidence from impeccable and independent sources which directly contradicted the soldiers’ testimony in most of the key issues. Nor was this belief shaken by the fact that the testimony of some of the soldiers was clearly incredible. Lord Widgery himself was unable to accept the testimony of the soldiers involved in the Glenfada Park shootings, which accounted for four of the dead and three of the wounded and nearly 30 per cent of all of the shots officially fired on Bloody Sunday.