The inquiry was given details of ongoing efforts to locate photographs and film believed to have been gathered by the British army on Bloody Sunday, or to find out what has happened to that material.
Mr Alan Roxburgh, for the tribunal, said the army had 10 stills photographers and one cine-camera team in Derry on Bloody Sunday for maximum coverage of the Civil Rights march and events around it.
It was reasonable to suppose they took a substantial number of photographs, but the Ministry of Defence had not found them. In a March 1972 report Col Overbury, legal adviser to the army's team at the Widgery inquiry, said: "Well over 1,000 copies of photographs were produced on demand for the use of the tribunal and counsel for the army".
He said Col Overbury was to be interviewed very soon. The inquiry has written recently to legal representatives of Sir Basil Hall, solicitor to the Widgery inquiry, his assistant, Mr John Heritage, and Mr Huggins, who appeared to have been responsible for documents then. They were asked what photographs were held by the Widgery inquiry as well as those that had been produced, or of what happened to any such additional photographs.
The inquiry was also getting a statement from Mr Colin Wallace of the army information policy unit who helped the legal teams for the Ministry of Defence at the Widgery inquiry. He would be asked about photographs.
Turning to the film taken from an army helicopter on the day, counsel said Soldier 2030, who made this film, had not yet attended for interview.
Counsel said the film appeared to be unedited, but wondered if this was all the film that was taken as "it comes to an end just at the critical moment when the APCs have entered the Bogside".
Mr Roxburgh said there was also an RUC film - three 100foot rolls - shot by a police officer S.R. Penney. ". . . the fact that the film is missing is highly regrettable," counsel said. "We have been told by the RUC that the film cannot be traced."
Mr Barry MacDonald, counsel representing the next of kin of James Wray, said the existence of army photographs had been concealed from the families at the time of the Widgery inquiry "which itself gives rise to the inference that they undermine the army's case and they supported the case put on behalf of the dead and the wounded . . ."
One explanation, he suggested, could be "that there was a deliberate, concerted policy of withholding vital photographs in relation to this inquiry, on the grounds that that material was too damaging to let fall into the hands of this inquiry".
Lord Saville said the best course might be for counsel to draft questions to be put to particular persons, and the tribunal would seek the co-operation of those persons without delay.
The inquiry continues today.