Chief of the General Staff in the British army General Sir Mike Jackson has made a new statement to the Bloody Sunday inquiry, it emerged today.
Gen Jackson originally gave evidence to the inquiry in April when he rejected as "ridiculous" claims that the army had deliberately tried to shoot people.
But it has since emerged that an army document may have been written by the teneral when he was a captain with the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment in 1972.
It is claimed the high-ranking army officer wrote a list of shots fired by the Parachute Regiment.
The inquiry has been told it was compiled in the back of an army car a couple of hours after 13 civilians were shot dead by members of the Parachute Regiment during a civil rights march in Derry.
Gen Jackson had told the inquiry in April he had no recollection of taking part in such an exercise.
His new statement is expected imminently but its contents are not known. The inquiry, chaired by Lord Saville, is investigating the deaths of the 13 civilians shot in Derry in January 1972. A 14th person died later. The inquiry resumed in London today.
The inquiry also heard evidence from a number of former British soldiers who were on duty on the day of Bloody Sunday.
A witness, only identified as soldier 035, who was a sergeant in the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, described the moment an order was given to open fire on two men crawling along the ground in a "military manner" and carrying "objects which looked like rifles" close to block one of the Rossville Flats.
In a written statement, the soldier said: "As section commander my job was to prevent these two gunmen from escaping because if they did they would be free to use these weapons against other military personnel."
Soldier 035 added that he could not remember if he had given the order to fire but he liked to think he did as he was the proper person to give it.
He agreed with the statements made by Ms Cathryn McGahey, counsel for the inquiry, that at the time he saw the two men neither of them was firing his weapon or preparing to fire, or posing a threat to life.
She added: "In those circumstances, do you now feel it was right for an order to fire to be given?"
"Yes, I do," soldier 035 replied, adding, "because I believed that they were not running away. I believed they were just moving from one position to another position."
He explained it was not "practical or feasible" to shout a warning to the men 100 metres away as there was a riot going on.
PA