Investigating crimes of the past
Sir, – What’s the difference between the Airey Neave assassination (1979) and the Loughinisland massacre (1994)? The former case has been reopened recently due to the intervention of the British home secretary Sajid Javid, while the latter case remains closed.
Although the Loughinisland massacre is significantly more recent, a renewed investigation is probably unlikely as key evidence in the investigation was destroyed.
Political expediency plays a part too, of course. It’s regrettable that acts of terrorism, equally abhorrent, are viewed prejudicially by political spokespeople on both sides. For some, the reopening of investigations into terrorist acts during the Troubles is seen as a “witch hunt” against the alleged perpetrators, while others are welcomed. It seems to be a case of cheering on the home side.
People of all persuasions benefit from the impartial investigation of all terrorist acts whether it be the indiscriminate murder of people gathering at a Remembrance Day memorial, or people sitting in a pub watching a football match. Political spokespeople who play to the gallery should be looked upon with contempt. The clarion call should be and should always have been “justice for all”. – Yours, etc,