The commander of the paratroopers responsible for the Bloody Sunday killings in Derry 31 years ago yesterday denied that he exceeded the orders given to him by his superiors on the day.
Lieut Col Derek Wilford, retired, of the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, was forced to defend the tactics he employed in Derry's Bogside on January 30th, 1972, when the soldiers under his command killed 13 unarmed civilians and wounded 13 others.
He told the inquiry into the killings yesterday that despite the deaths and injuries caused by his soldiers, he still believed they behaved admirably on Bloody Sunday.
Lieut Col Wilford denied that he failed to adequately inform his brigade headquarters of his intention to deploy paratroopers into the Bogside through two army barriers.
He also rejected that he had exceeded and misinterpreted his orders by advancing into the Bogside and becoming involved in a running battle with civilians.
The allegations were put to the witness by counsel to the inquiry, Mr Christopher Clarke, QC, who told the retired officer that his superior on the day, Brigadier Pat MacLellan, had already told the inquiry that he regarded Lieut Col Wilford's deep entry into the Bogside as "a breach of that order because it involved getting sucked in and mixing up with peaceful marchers".
Lieut Col Wilford said his plan was to carry out an arrest operation against rioters on the day of the illegal civil rights march in the Bogside.
"I have to say that when people are rioting, there is a kind of mesmeric effect with rioters and they take courage from each other and at that time, of course they are absolutely at their most dangerous, so in order to destroy that danger one has to go in very, very hard and very, very fast," he told the inquiry's three judges.
The witness said although he had been ordered not to conduct a running battle down the Rossville Street entrance to the Bogside, that did not mean he could not enter the Bogside.
"One had to remain absolutely flexible in this and a part of the flexibility involving catching rioters was to be able to break up their escape and take them, in the first instance, of course, by surprise and in the second instance, in fact, by being able to cut them off. It was my judgment in that that we were required to cut them off in a pincer movement," he said.
However, when Mr Clarke put it to the witness that he had failed to appreciate the nature of the arrest operation ordered by Brigade headquarters, Lieut Col Wilford said he could not accept that assertion.
"I have no doubt that they were aware of what our intentions were and I would be very surprised if they did not support that in their evidence to this inquiry," he said.
"No, sir, they were always aware that in fact an operation, an arrest operation by my battalion, would involve a pincer movement and that I would be using two companies at a minimum to do that job," he added.
The witness agreed with Mr Clarke that he had not seen the circumstances in which people were killed and wounded on Bloody Sunday. He said it was still his belief that none of his soldiers was guilty of misconduct or worse, rather, he believed, they behaved admirably.