A barrister told the inquiry yesterday that civilian witnesses had been placed in an invidious position by being questioned in a hostile manner "in order to induce them to identify other persons who they think or suspect may have played a military or paramilitary role."
Mr Richard Harvey, for the family of Mr Jim Wray, told the chairman that witnesses had been asked "what they knew, what they believed and effectively what gossip they may have overheard". He invited the tribunal to lay down guidelines as to the way counsel could examine civilian witnesses. Counsel should refrain from pressing witnesses to reveal mere speculation or belief. Where a witness could only speak from rumour or gossip, his evidence could really be of no value and he should not be pressed to answer on that basis.
Counsel also submitted that questions should not be phrased in ways which might reveal the names of persons who were known to be seeking anonymity.
He claimed that because of references made on Monday to persons identified in Mr Eamonn McCann's book, two witnesses who were in the process of speaking to tribunal officials about anonymity "have in effect had their anonymity `outed'."
This had had a "chilling effect" on the willingness of others to come forward, he said.
Lord Saville said the tribunal noted counsel's concerns but did not believe that any genuine claims for anonymity had been prejudiced. The reason the tribunal's counsel had been asking the sort of questions he had was that "until recently . . . we have had no other avenues open to us to try and find those people who we think . . . should be able to help us with Bloody Sunday".
He added that their basic duty was to discover the whole truth, saying: "If the only way we can do that, unsatisfactory though it is, is to ask questions about rumours and who knew who and so on, we are forced to adopt that method."
The inquiry continues today.