THE evidence of the Bloody Sunday march leader and SDLP founder Ivan Cooper to the Saville inquiry has been dismissed as completely unreliable.

It follows his claims that a newspaper interview he gave in the aftermath of the massacre was fabricated by British intelligence.

In its report, the inquiry stated its belief that it would be "unwise" to rely upon any of the accounts given by Cooper unless supported by other evidence.

Cooper denied giving an interview to a journalist in which he allegedly described meeting with several associates of the Provisional IRA who were concerned about a number of armed republicans holed up in a nearby betting shop prior to the massacre.

The IRA had long stated that its policy was not to engage in armed conflict during civil rights marches.

Cooper has denied the interview ever took place and claims the resulting notes were "constructed" by British security forces.

The former Stormont MP was played by the actor James Nesbitt in the 2002 film Bloody Sunday which reconstructed the events of the day.

At the height of his activity in politics, he attracted the highest level of nationalist support despite, at times, alienating his own Protestant community.

In his evidence to the inquiry, which presented its findings last week, Cooper rejected out of hand that he had ever given an interview to Sunday Times journalist John Barry in the aftermath of the killings detailing aspects of events in the run up to the massacre.

Despite notes of the interview being accepted as authentic by the inquiry team, Cooper said: "I have never been interviewed by the Sunday Times Insight team… the entire document is a fabrication."

The former civil rights campaigner described the notes, both handwritten and in typescript, as being "poisonous and disturbing" and said the manner in which they were written "smacks of British security intelligence operating".

Barry dismissed the suggestion that any such agency had anything to do with the material.

Cooper told the inquiry that the Sunday Times had never made any effort to contact him in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday and that he would have no reason to cooperate with its research had it tried.

"A number of journalists have very strong opinions as to how these eight pages have emerged," he said in testimony, implying an alternative motive for their appearance.

"I am certain of one thing: John Barry did not interview me. So these pages must have been constructed in some way; I do not know who was part of the construction but I know I contributed nothing towards it."

Barry told the inquiry that he had interviewed Cooper after the original Insight article had been published, as he had been seeking further detailed information, possibly for a book on the subject.

The inquiry report stated: "We are sure that the notes represent an accurate account of what he told John Barry, who in our view was a reliable and impressive witness.

"We accept John Barry's denial of the suggestion that British security services or any British authority had anything to do with his notes.

"In these circumstances we reject as untrue Ivan Cooper's insistence that John Barry did not interview him. To our minds this throws serious doubt on his evidence to us, save where, as we have said, there is other evidence to support what he said."