The post you are reporting:
There remain questions regarding McGuinness and whether he did or did not fire on the troops. Regardless of the weight of evidence the possibility has not been totally demolished.
I have just read a Telegraph article that looks into the McGuiness question on the possibility that he fired at troops from the Rossville flats. Infliction is the code-word for an IRA supergrass who could not personally testify, so little weight was placed on his evidence by the enquiry.
From the report: my comments in brackets.
"""""The Infliction material raises the possibility that he did (fire on troops). We have set out above our reasons for not giving much weight to this material. Accordingly, we can in this report make no finding on the point."
147.351 """""Nevertheless, our inability and that of those representing Martin McGuinness to question Infliction on such matters as his relationship with Martin McGuinness and the circumstances in which Martin McGuinness is said to have made the remarks in question, and otherwise to test the truth of Infliction's account and the accuracy of his recollection, have led us to conclude that it would be unwise and indeed unfair to place much weight on that account. On this basis we consider that this account by itself does no more than raise the possibility that, notwithstanding his denial, Martin McGuinness did fire a Thompson sub-machine gun on "single " shot from the Rossville Flats on Bloody Sunday.""""""""""
It is worth pointing out that a number of people who witnessed McGuinness on the day corroborate some of the substance of Infliction's claims. (Telegraph writer)
The report goes on at 147.355:
"""We should note at this point that in the course of considering the events of Sector 2, we have concluded that someone probably did fire a number of shots at the soldiers from the south-west end of the lower balcony of Block 3 of the Rossville Flats, close to one of the walkways joining Block 3 to Block 2 of the Rossville Flats, probably at a stage after soldiers had opened fire in that sector. From that position Margaret Deery could have been seen being carried to a house in Chamberlain Street after she had been wounded in the thigh. The evidence that we have on these shots suggests that they were fired from a carbine, but in our view this does not necessarily establish that it could not have been a Thompson sub-machine gun. Unless the weapon can be clearly seen and identified, for reasons given elsewhere in this report1a Thompson sub-machine gun fired on "single " shot (ie not repeatedly on automatic) could be mistaken for some other type of weapon being fired more than once. After firing there would have been an escape route away from the soldiers and out of their sight by the stairs that led down to ground level in the gap between Blocks 2 and 3 of the Rossville Flats. However, Infliction's account is to the effect that Martin McGuinness told him that he had fired the first shot, not a number of shots, so that there is little to connect this account with the firing from the south-west end of the lower balcony of Block 3 of the Rossville Flats."
Little is not nothing....
So regardless of what is said in the press headlines and while the evidence may not be sufficient to obtain a court conviction there remains the possibility that the Troops were fired on by McGuiness.
Amazing what you find when you get into the detail of such reports. It really is not as clear-cut as it seems yesterday based on the report summary.
This is one more reason that a trial of the troops in question will not provide justice.