🔗 Share this article

Sunday 30 January 1972 is remembered as among the most deadly – and momentous – occasions in thirty years of violence in the region.

Within the community of the incident – the memories of the tragic events are visible on the walls and etched in people's minds.

A protest demonstration was conducted on a cold but bright afternoon in the city.

The march was a protest against the system of imprisonment without charges – holding suspects without due process – which had been implemented after multiple years of conflict.

Troops from the Parachute Regiment shot dead multiple civilians in the district – which was, and still is, a strongly nationalist area.

A particular photograph became notably memorable.

Pictures showed a religious figure, the priest, waving a stained with blood fabric in his effort to defend a crowd moving a young man, Jackie Duddy, who had been fatally wounded.

Media personnel documented considerable film on the day.

The archive includes Fr Daly telling a media representative that soldiers "appeared to shoot indiscriminately" and he was "absolutely certain" that there was no provocation for the gunfire.

This account of what happened was disputed by the first inquiry.

The first investigation found the soldiers had been fired upon initially.

During the peace process, the ruling party commissioned another inquiry, following pressure by bereaved relatives, who said the initial inquiry had been a inadequate investigation.

In 2010, the findings by Lord Saville said that on balance, the paratroopers had initiated shooting and that zero among the victims had presented danger.

At that time head of state, David Cameron, issued an apology in the Parliament – declaring killings were "improper and unjustifiable."

The police began to examine the events.

One former paratrooper, known as the accused, was brought to trial for murder.

Accusations were made concerning the fatalities of one victim, 22, and in his mid-twenties another victim.

The accused was additionally charged of trying to kill multiple individuals, Joseph Friel, further individuals, an additional individual, and an unknown person.

There is a legal order protecting the veteran's privacy, which his lawyers have argued is required because he is at danger.

He testified the examination that he had exclusively discharged his weapon at individuals who were armed.

The statement was rejected in the official findings.

Material from the inquiry would not be used immediately as testimony in the legal proceedings.

In the dock, the defendant was hidden from public behind a blue curtain.

He made statements for the first time in the hearing at a hearing in December 2024, to reply "not responsible" when the charges were read.

Relatives of the victims on that day journeyed from the city to the courthouse daily of the proceedings.

One relative, whose relative was fatally wounded, said they always knew that attending the proceedings would be painful.

"I can see the events in my mind's eye," John said, as we walked around the primary sites referenced in the trial – from the location, where the victim was killed, to the adjacent the courtyard, where one victim and the second person were fatally wounded.

"It reminds me to my position that day.

"I participated in moving Michael and place him in the ambulance.

"I went through every moment during the proceedings.

"Despite having to go through everything – it's still meaningful for me."