The inquiry yesterday began a searching analysis of the evidence surrounding a highly contentious detail, the claim by the British army that four nail bombs were found on the body of 17-year-old victim, Gerald Donaghey, after the car taking him to hospital was stopped.
For 28 years the claim has rankled with relatives and raised suspicions that the incident was contrived to justify the
paratroopers' claims that they were fired on by gunmen and bombers.
In his 1972 report on Bloody Sunday, the late Lord Widgery concluded: "I think that on the balance of probabilities the bombs were in Donaghey's pockets throughout."
Yesterday counsel to the tribunal, Mr Christopher Clarke QC, sifted through the statements, past and present, of soldiers and RUC officers involved in the nail-bomb allegation, and identified inconsistencies.
The car taking Gerry Donaghey out of the Bogside after he was shot was stopped by soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment at a barrier at Barrack Street, before being driven on by Soldier 150 to an army post beside Craigavon Bridge.
Soldier 135 has said he did not see anything in the youth's pockets and he believed he would have noticed if there was anything of any size protruding from a trouser pocket.
Soldier 104, in an early statement to military police, claimed he did see a nail-bomb in a pocket while the car was at the barrier. However, in his statement to solicitors for the Widgery tribunal he said he did not see the bomb until the car was at the bridge.
In his latest statement, to this tribunal, 104 asserts he still thinks that he saw the nail-bomb while at the barrier, but that he decided to change his initial statement when a solicitor pointed out that other soldiers were saying they did not see the bomb until the car was at Craigavon Bridge.
Mr Clarke said if 104 did see what be believed to be a nailbomb in the car at the barrier, the question arose as to why he allowed Soldier 150 to drive it onwards to the bridge.
Soldier 150, in turn, states to this tribunal, Mr Clarke said, that he does not remember anyone at the time saying that the man in the back of the car had nailbombs in his pockets. "I would not have driven the car if the man had had nail-bombs in his pockets, in case the bomb was rigged or something. I am sure if there had been a nail-bomb or bombs in the man's pockets I would have seen then," he says.
Mr Clarke said that Capt 138, an army medical officer, says he twice examined the body in the car at Craigavon Bridge and would have noticed something in the trouser pockets. "It would have been extraordinary if I had not seen nail-bombs," he says. An RUC explosives officer, Sgt Vernon Carson, says that he searched the body for identification shortly after the car arrived at the bridge outpost, and found what appeared to be a nail-bomb. He asked for an army technical officer to be called in.
Det Sgt Eugene McTeggart, however, also claimed to have noticed the object sticking out of the trouser pocket. Constable Clara Hamilton, in turn, says that when she went to the car to seek identification on the body, a soldier looking in the offside window said: "There's something in his pocket".
Insp Harry Dickson, in an early report to his superior officer, said he was told of the object by Sgt McTeggart; his statement to this tribunal says that he himself saw the object protruding from a pocket when he went to the car with Sgt McTeggart.
Mr Clarke said Gerry Donaghey's body had been looked at by at least four policemen, and these examinations appeared to have followed the medical officer's inspection.
Having outlined the various inconsistencies and unanswered questions, counsel said the position would be complicated further by fresh statements which he proposed to open today.