Tension between British army commanders and local RUC officers in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday led to a top-ranking general making complaints at the highest level about the "extraordinary attitude" of the senior Derry RUC officer, Chief Supt Frank Lagan, the inquiry heard.
A document marked "Secret" revealed that the army GOC, Gen Sir Harry Tuzo, voiced his intention of "taking the whole matter of the behaviour of the chief superintendent up with the chief constable".
The document is a memo prepared after the Chief of the General Staff of the army, Gen Sir Michael Carver, visited Northern Ireland six days after Bloody Sunday and met Gen Tuzo.
It says the GOC "outlined the particular problems experienced in dealing with the Londonderry RUC on and after the events of Sunday, 30th January".
It listed these under various headings. The chief superintendent had not been contactable at all throughout Monday, 31st, it said.
At Altnagelvin Hospital, "no statements had been taken by the RUC, and no swabs from the wounded, until after 28 correspondents had taken statements on Tuesday. The RUC was then allowed in.
"Five CID men, sent from Belfast to take these statements, were ordered back to Belfast . . . on orders of the chief superintendent who said they were not necessary".
According to the memo, Gen Tuzo also complained that Chief Supt Lagan was adopting "an extraordinary attitude" about the statements made so far by the RUC. "Many had not been sent on at all and the APM [possibly, army provost marshal] had been asked to return all those which were in his possession."
The memo continued that, as a result of this the GOC was taking the whole matter up with the chief constable [Sir Graham Shillington], and the CGS [Chief of the General Staff] "went to see PUS [parliamentary under-secretary] at the Home Office this morning, who suggested that Mr Mackay should pay another visit to investigate the whole affair."
The memo also reveals that after strong advice from the then British Attorney General [Sir Peter Rawlinson], the Treasury Solicitor and counsel, it was agreed [between army chiefs] not to seek immunity from prosecution for soldiers giving evidence at the Widgery inquiry.
It said that this was because: "(a) There was little danger of a soldier being prosecuted anyway.
"(b) To request it would be bad tactically as well as politically.
"(c) It was not worth going for if the immediate result was that the opposition (sic) asked for similar immunity; evidence given under caution was anyway not admissible."
Apparently as an outcome of the Tuzo complaints, there was an exchange of correspondence between the chief constable and Chief Supt Lagan.
The chief constable asked for answers to a series of questions, including whether the wounded persons were interviewed, whether any of them had admitted carrying firearms, and why "members of the world press were apparently allowed to interview wounded persons in hospital in front of television cameras before they had been interviewed by the police".
Chief Supt Lagan's reply rejected any suggestion that his men had failed in their duties. He said all the wounded had required major surgery. They had been interviewed as quickly as possible after the requirements of the medical staff, the wounded and their representatives.
None of the wounded had admitted carrying arms when they were injured. No allegations of offences were received by the RUC in respect of any of the wounded and none had Special Branch record or background.
The press interviews had been arranged between the hospital and the press, Supt Lagan added, and "even had we been advised I am not aware of any authority whereby we could have prevented the press conference taking place".
These issues were outlined by counsel to the tribunal, Mr Christopher Clarke QC, as he dealt with statements issued by British officers, Ministry of Defence spokesmen and other official British sources in the immediate aftermath of the shootings.
These had included assertions that four of those wounded were "wanted" by the security forces, and that two of the wounded had admitted carrying firearms.
Mr Clarke remarked that it was not apparent how, in the various statements issued, criminal records had been found and converted to being men on the wanted list. The route, he said, "may have involved a process of Chinese whispers".