A judge has risen to consider an application to dismiss the case against a former British paratrooper accused of the murder of two men during the events of Bloody Sunday in 1972.<\/p>\n
Judge Patrick Lynch heard arguments that the key evidence against the veteran, referred to as Soldier F for legal reasons, was unreliable and could potentially lead to an unsafe conviction.<\/p>\n
However, the prosecution has said accounts by fellow former paratroopers Soldier G and Soldier H provide direct evidence from two separate sources that Soldier F fired at civilians.<\/p>\n
Soldier F is charged with the murders of James Wray and William McKinney during disorder after a civil rights parade in Derry on January 30th, 1972.<\/p>\n
Some 13 people were shot dead by the Parachute Regiment on the day.<\/p>\n
Soldier F is also accused of attempting to murder Michael Quinn, Patrick O\u2019Donnell, Joseph Friel, Joe Mahon and an unknown person. He has pleaded not guilty to the seven counts.<\/p>\n
Soldier F sits in the courtroom at Belfast Crown Court behind a curtain during each day of the non-jury trial, which began last month.<\/p>\n
Key evidence in the case described as \u201cdecisive\u201d by the prosecution includes statements by two other former paratroopers known as Soldier G and Soldier H.<\/p>\n
Their accounts place Soldier F in Glenfada Park North, and allege that he had opened fire.<\/p>\n
It has not been possible to cross-examine the two veterans on their previous statements during this trial. Soldier G has died and Soldier H has indicated he will exercise his right against self-incrimination if summoned.<\/p>\n
The prosecution concluded its case on Friday, when the court also heard that Soldier F had been interviewed voluntarily under caution across two days between March 8th and 9th, 2016, by officers from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).<\/p>\n
He declined to respond to questions on the basis that he \u201cno longer\u201d has \u201cany reliable recollection of those events\u201d and made no comment to all questions put to him.<\/p>\n
Defence barrister Mark Mulholland KC said the evidence does not \u201cstack up\u201d and has argued for the case to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
On Monday he queried changes in the statements given by Soldier H to the Royal Military Police on the night of the shootings to the Widgery Inquiry later that year, and the Saville Inquiry in the 2000s, and described him as an \u201cunreliable witness\u201d.<\/p>\n
On Tuesday, Mr Mulholland turned to the evidence of Soldier G, and put to the court that the statements of G and H fundamentally contradict each other in terms of who has fired, where and when.<\/p>\n