In February 1972, a Sunday Times journalist met a British army public relations officer for drinks at a barracks outside Derry, according to material heard yesterday. At the meeting, a 14-year-old boy from the Bogside was produced, who said he had seen IRA men open fire on Bloody Sunday.
Counsel to the inquiry read part of a memorandum from the journalist, Murray Sayle, to the then editor, Harold Evans, "and others interested".
The memo - headed "I do not want to seem paranoid about this, but I do not think this should leave the Sunday Times office" - was dated February 19th, 1972. It set out "the very great difficulties" the journalists had faced in relation to an "Insight" article on Bloody Sunday.
It included what counsel described as "a curious passage", from which a name has been blanked out by the tribunal. The passage says:
"Last Monday night, February 14th, I was invited down to Drumahoe barracks just outside Derry for drinks with [blank], PRO officer of the 41 Light Aircraft Regiment . . .
"[Blank] shot me an incredible line. He said he had been present at the demonstration himself, dressed in plain clothes and a wig, and had seen the IRA open up with Thompsons near the barricade site, thus killing their own people. One body, he said, had a .303 bullet in it, proving that the IRA had shot, because they have .303s stolen from the British army barracks; so, I pointed out, have the marksmen on the sniper posts around the Bogside.
"He produced a boy of 14 who said he was from the Bogside and said he had seen the IRA men open up with Thompsons and nail-bombs. I asked him (the boy) was he sure about the nailbombs. He said: `Yes'.
"Ten minutes before, [blank] said he had heard no nail-bombs and not one witness had heard any nail-bombs.
"Then, getting deeper and deeper into the whisky, (blank said): `You know, old boy, there is only one thing we really want here, we just cannot let people at home think we shot unarmed men in the back, we just cannot have people thinking that, can we?"
The memo goes on to say: "I am sure this man is lying, no doubt out of some mistaken view that the army need to protect their good name. I relate the incident partly to let our people know what we might expect to hear at Widgery; also with a note of caution - I do not want to be over-dramatic but I think that any army caught in this sort of embarrassing bind, and with officers' reputations and careers at stake, is capable of playing it very dirty indeed. The same of course goes for the IRA and I advise the utmost caution on everyone and full disclosure among ourselves or we could be sold some very alarming bills of goods."
After reading the document, counsel said he believed that the tribunal had found the individual to whom the journalist was talking, but that he had not so far replied to their letters.