Bloody Sunday: The Soldiers

There are countless testimonies from the witnesses of Bloody Sunday. Testimonies about the March itself, testimonies of the shooting, and testimonies of the after-effects. These testimonies have come from active participants of the civil rights march and also from innocent bystanders. What we do not hear much of, though, are the comments from the soldiers themselves, the shooters of Bloody Sunday. It was truly only during the Saville Inquiry that their side of the story was heard. And unfortunately, many of their stories provided no more evidence 35 years later, than they did when the first report was made.

Why were so many of the soldiers untruthful? Other witnesses who listened to the soldiers' replies to the Inquiry also asked that question. Mara Young, a relative of one of the victims from Bloody Sunday, stated "I was expecting some of them, especially the shooters, after 35 years, to tell the truth," which evidently they did not (McMann 85). Michael McKinney also felt the same: "Soldiers were given immunity from the prosecution to come in and tell the truth and they came in and lied their heads off" (McMann 85). Young and McKinney were not the only witnesses who felt outraged at the untruthfulness that seemed to be coming from the soldiers, who were even referred to as A, B, etc. to retain their anonymity. Johnny Campbell, the son from one of the deceased victims of Bloody Sunday recalled that "The deeper they went into their evidence, the bigger the hole they were digging. They had their stories all mixed up, and their stories were stupid...In a way, the lies were worse than the actual shooting. Without the lies I might have forgiven them the shooting...They had all that time to say it and they didn't" (McMann 92).

While we will never know for sure why exactly the soldiers lied twice about what really happened on Bloody Sunday, assumptions for their responses can be made. Absolution from punishment is not everything, even with the assurance of anonymity with the testimonies. Peer pressure from within the groups could have swayed the soldiers responses. Their claims of "I can't remember" may have been legitimate, especially considering that the Saville Inquiry took place over three decades since the event occurred. And maybe moral consciousness was not enough to sway the soldiers' decisions on what to say during the Inquiry. After all, it had been over 30 years. Why bring up the past? Why bring up memories that for some, are best forgotten? To be sure, truthful responses while maybe relieving their consciences, would also have probably disrupted their lives in the future.

An important note that I find worth mentioning, however, is that while the responses from the soldiers may have been slightly untruthful, so too could have been the witnesses testimonies. Biases from this event are rampant everywhere. As you have probably noticed from the quotes earlier, most of them were from relatives or friends of the deceased. Therefore, their recollections of whomever was involved in the march, while possibly very truthful, also have the chance of showing a skewed perception. Perceptions of the witnesses could include a nationalist viewpoint or a unionist outlook.None of them are going to be completely objective; it's simply impossible.Thus, just like with the soldiers' testimonies, I also have to make sure to intake the civilian responses with a grain of salt.

McCann, Eamonn. "Soldiers." In The Bloody Sunday Inquiry. London: Pluto Press, 2006.