Keith, Saville does not need to say why he "believes" the first shots were not fired by the Official IRA. He has arrived at his view "on balance" in light of the evidence presented. Most of that evidence was heard in public and published at the time it was given. I have no doubt that Saville will have subjected it to microscopic analysis in the body of his report. but I have not yet read all 5,000 pages. If you or anyone else would like to have a stab at that, here it is:

Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry

Jim, the analogy with India does have one or two limitations. For instance Northern Ireland's status accords with the declared wishes of a majority of its population, which was far from the case in pre-partition India. Also, in conforming with the wishes of Ghandi and Jinnah, the Brits left the region in obscene haste, resulting in a bloodbath in which the death toll ran into millions. The slightly more civilised disengagement from Ireland is, in my view, much to be preferred.

Richard Bridge's suggestion the Saville report is a piece of creative writing is quite extraordinary. It is a view that has not been advanced by any informed commentator from any side of the arguments. To sustain his suspicion he must have somehow persuaded himself that liars like Soldier F were telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.