🔗 Share this article

Sunday 30 January 1972 stands as arguably the deadliest – and consequential – occasions during multiple decades of unrest in the region.

In the streets of the incident – the images of that fateful day are displayed on the structures and seared in people's minds.

A protest demonstration was organized on a wintry, sunny afternoon in the city.

The march was opposing the practice of imprisonment without charges – holding suspects without trial – which had been implemented after an extended period of violence.

Soldiers from the elite army unit killed multiple civilians in the neighborhood – which was, and continues to be, a strongly Irish nationalist community.

One image became particularly memorable.

Images showed a Catholic priest, the priest, waving a bloodied white handkerchief in his effort to protect a crowd carrying a youth, the injured teenager, who had been killed.

News camera operators captured considerable film on the day.

The archive includes Fr Daly informing a media representative that military personnel "just seemed to discharge weapons randomly" and he was "absolutely certain" that there was no reason for the gunfire.

The narrative of events was rejected by the initial investigation.

The initial inquiry found the soldiers had been shot at first.

Throughout the resolution efforts, the administration commissioned a new investigation, following pressure by surviving kin, who said Widgery had been a cover-up.

During 2010, the findings by the investigation said that generally, the paratroopers had fired first and that zero among the casualties had been armed.

At that time head of state, David Cameron, expressed regret in the Parliament – saying deaths were "without justification and inexcusable."

Law enforcement started to examine the events.

An ex-soldier, identified as Soldier F, was charged for killing.

He was charged regarding the fatalities of James Wray, in his twenties, and in his mid-twenties another victim.

The accused was further implicated of seeking to harm Patrick O'Donnell, additional persons, more people, another person, and an unknown person.

There is a legal order maintaining the defendant's identity protection, which his attorneys have argued is necessary because he is at danger.

He told the examination that he had solely shot at people who were armed.

The statement was rejected in the concluding document.

Material from the investigation was unable to be used straightforwardly as evidence in the criminal process.

In court, the accused was screened from view with a privacy screen.

He addressed the court for the initial occasion in the hearing at a hearing in that month, to answer "not responsible" when the charges were read.

Relatives of those who were killed on the incident travelled from the city to the judicial building each day of the proceedings.

A family member, whose sibling was killed, said they understood that attending the trial would be painful.

"I can see the events in my recollection," he said, as we visited the primary sites referenced in the trial – from the street, where his brother was fatally wounded, to the adjoining the area, where the individual and another victim were fatally wounded.

"It even takes me back to my position that day.

"I participated in moving my brother and lay him in the ambulance.

"I went through each detail during the evidence.

"Despite having to go through all that – it's still worthwhile for me."