Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540-561)
WITNESS A, WITNESS
B, MRS MARIE
TERESE O'HAGAN
AND WITNESS
C
22 FEBRUARY 2005
Q540 Mr Pound: You strike me as pretty
brave.
Witness C: I was braver downstairs
before we came up.
Q541 Mr Pound: You are doing fine.
Witness C: It is very important
for us to try and get our emotions across to you and we will throw
it at you mostly and you will now know where we are coming from.
Chairman: I am very glad you are doing
it the way you are because we need to hear this.
Q542 Mr Campbell: You will appreciate
we have spoken to a number of relatives of victims and various
groups and some of them have talked about the issue of an apology
from the perpetrators, and Witness A mentioned that it would be
a start but she did not think it would have the desired effect.
I am just wondering how important it is for the people who were
the perpetrators to state unequivocally that what they did was
wrong and apologise for it. Would that create some sort of new
start for you? Would it close the book? Is there any point?
Witness C: If they were lifted
and did their time. We all agreed to the prisoners getting out.
I said, "That is very easy for me to say but my son's murderer
is not inside". I was all for that but my son's murderer
was not getting out. We are only human. We will move forward but
my son's murderer is not in there. He is not going to get out
after two or three years. I am beginning to wonder now.
Witness A: I felt the same about
that. People have stated that such a one only did eight years,
such a one only did 10 years. As I once stated, what about me
and hundreds more like me that did not have the satisfaction of
seeing them serve one hour, one week, one year or 11 years? If
we can go forward in the hope that this finishes here once and
for all, I think everybody else should be able to go forward with
us.
Q543 Chairman: Let me finally ask you
a rather difficult question. If we ever did sign up to some sort
of arrangement whereby people on all sides acknowledged wrongs,
whereby people owned up to what had happened, that would, in the
context of crimes such as the murder of Mrs Service's son, probably
have to involve some sort of amnesty because you could not expect
someone to come up and say, "Yes, I murdered Mrs Service's
son", unless they were going to be told they would not be
prosecuted for that. How would that affect you?
Witness C: I would not want that.
My son was very precious to me and he had done no-one any harm
and no-one had the right to take his life just because he was
a Catholic. If he had been involved in something, maybe I would
have said, "Well, if you play with fire you get burnt".
Q544 Chairman: Mrs Cartledge?
Witness A: In truth I would ask
Gregory Campbell this question. The Good Friday Agreement was
signed in 1994. Every time there has been a step forward there
have been four steps back and you in particular are the one that
kept on bringing up Sinn Fein/IRA. There was many a time I watched
you on the television and I thought to myself, "Why does
somebody not say `Loyalist/UVA'?", when you were doing the
spouting about Sinn Fein/IRA
Q545 Chairman: I think it might be better
if we do not get into that.
Witness A: Yes, but if this thing
is going to be settled everybody has to go that extra step.
Q546 Chairman: That is understood.
Witness A: Including politicians
as well as the victims that have been affected.
Q547 Chairman: Probably especially politicians.
I do not think anyone denies that.
Witness C: Northern Ireland politicians.
Witness A: More so Northern Ireland
politicians.
Q548 Chairman: No-one would disagree
with that. I do not want to get into a personality thing.
Witness C: I would like to see
the Executive up and running.
Q549 Chairman: I am trying to ask this
question about the amnesty.
Witness C: I do not agree with
that.
Q550 Chairman: I have got * * * *
answer. What about Mrs Cartledge? You see, if the person who shot
your husband were to come and say, "Okay; these were different
times. I did not understand", or, "I am sorry. It was
wrong. I wish it had not happened", you could of course not
then prosecute him for that. How would you feel about that personally?
Witness A: If the peace process
were to go forward I would be quite happy if the 17 B-men never
said they were sorry as long as nobody's children or grandchildren
had to go through what we went through.
Q551 Chairman: That again is completely
different but just as honest an answer. What about * * * *?
Witness B: I would be happy for
everyone to live together. As I say, I have been out with the
other befriender.
Q552 Chairman: I am asking this because
I do not see how you can have that sort of process without it,
so it may be one of the very good reasons for not having it. We
have a completely open mind about this.
Witness C: What do you mean by
not having a process?
Q553 Chairman: A process of reconciliation
whereby people come and tell the truth, whereby people come and
acknowledge from all sides that mistakes were made, which is what
the Secretary of State at the moment is consulting about. We are
trying, with a completely open mind, to see whether or not this
is on the cards in any way. The difficulty would be that if people
were to come and own up to what they did you cannot then expect
them to be prosecuted. That is why I asked you the question. I
got a very straight and honest answer from Witness B, a completely
different one from Witness A, and I would like one from Witness
C.
Witness B: I would want them to
do their time.
Q554 Chairman: You do acknowledge that
this is a real difficulty?
Witness B: They have to learn.
Q555 Chairman: Okay. That is again a
very straight answer.
Witness C: The reason I want the
peace process to work and for the Assembly to be up and going
is that I became aware by listening to the radio that governing
your own country is the best thing. There was some organisation
that got into debt or overspent and it was picked up very quickly.
To rule your schools, your health, that to me would be a step
forward for this country, financially as well as everything else.
I think that is why people think it is a good idea.
Q556 Chairman: I was very conscious when
I was a minister here that it was second best. We did our best
but we are not you.
Witness C: But you would not have
picked up things so quickly.
Q557 Chairman: Absolutely right. I do
understand.
Witness B: Another thing is the
media. The media is cruel.
Q558 Chairman: I do not think you have
to tell a group of politicians that.
Witness A: Lies and truth to print.
Witness B: Actually, I was not
going to come here today if the media had been here, no way.
Witness A: We were not going to
come in.
Q559 Chairman: I am very glad you said
that because it was a difficult decision to take because we always
sit in public. I was very strongly of the view that on these occasions
we would take all our evidence in private. We will be publishing
what you have said, you understand that, but I quite agree: the
media would have been an unwelcome diversion anyway to what we
are trying to do, which is to look at it from all sides. We have
heard other sides from yours. We have still got to hear from the
government side and the police. Thank you very much indeed for
coming and for being so frank with us. May I just to * * * *,
we are not going to pass on.
Witness C: I will be waiting,
believe you me. This time, yes, I am definitely waiting to see
what happens.
Q560 Chairman: What we will be doing
is probably at the end of March publishing our first thoughts.
We cannot complete this inquiry before the election.
Witness C: Please put it in language
that the ordinary person can understand.
Q561 Chairman: If we put it in language
that I can understand I am ordinary person, so there we go. Thank
you all very much for coming.
Witness C: Thank you for the opportunity.
| 
