Time will tell
Relatives and wounded promise closest scrutiny of
Bloody Sunday Inquiry
By Martha McClelland
For the formal opening of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry,
relatives walked from where the original procession was
stopped in William Street to the Guildhall,
symbolically finishing a march stopped dead by British
Paratroopers 26 years ago.
Mickey McKinney, Chair of the Bloody Sunday Justice
Campaign (BSJC), explained, ``This was about completing
one journey and embarking on another, namely the search
for truth and justice. We hope that at long last we
will finally establish the full truth of what happened
on Bloody Sunday and indeed why it happened and who was
involved''. McKinney noted this inquiry's deliberate
choice of the Guildhall venue, in sharp contrast to Ted
Heath's comment in 1972, ruling out the Guildhall
because although ``it was the obvious place, might be on
the wrong side of the River Foyle.''
``We are approaching the inquiry with an open mind,''
McKinney said, ``and hope the inquiry panel will honour
their promise to conduct the inquiry with `fairness,
thoroughness and impartiality'. However, we will be
paying very close attention to detail through the
duration of the inquiry.''
A top legal team for the relatives was led by Peter
Madden of Madden and Finucane, Belfast, and included
Michael Farrell of Dublin, and Derry solicitors Paddy
MacDermott, Greg McCartney, and Des Doherty. Welcoming
the new approach announced by Lord Saville, head of the
Inquiry, they also requested him to provide copies of
all relevant materials collected, so they could
determine not only what happened but why.
McKinney acknowledged that the relatives believed
Saville ``was trying to be fair'' but cautioned ``only
through the process of the inquiry can we find out if
he is fair.''
From their past experience of British justice many
questioned what the BSJC would do if the British
government, or key witnesses like Paratroops, sought to
evade the inquiry. The ghost of the Stalker Inquiry
haunted some minds: What would the relatives do if the
British government slapped Public Interest Immunity
Certificates on crucial witnesses? Would the BSJC ask
the British government to show respect for the
independence of the inquiry by undertaking not to issue
PIICs? What would the relatives attitude be if certain
witnesses sought immunity from prosecution in exchange
for testimony? The relatives and their legal team
refused to mortgage their future strategy choices by
decisions today, such matters would be dealt with as
they arose.
Although Saville ruled out this inquiry investigating
Widgery, Peter Madden said much of the Widgery evidence
would be very relevant, and Saville would be held to
his promise to ``seek all relevant witnesses and
statements''
Mickey McKinney stressed, ``Bloody Sunday goes further
than the people who pulled the triggers'' and relative
John Kelly elaborated: ``Bloody Sunday was planned in
advance. Those who planned it must be brought forward,
including the British Prime Minister, the Stormont
government, including its Security Council, and anyone
else involved''
When asked ``What is more important to the families, to
establish the full facts, or lay the groundwork for
eventual prosecutions?'' John Kelly said''Truth and
justice run in parallel. If we find the truth, we hope
to achieve justice. We look forward, time will tell.''
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)