25 February 2010

Apparent Truth

A bit of trouble at the coroners inquest court, Reuters explains,

"At one stage during the dry legal technical to-ing and fro-ing on Thursday, a relative of one of the innocent victims made an emotional plea for the term "apparent bombers" to be dropped after one of the lawyers repeatedly used the term.

"For more than four-and-a-half years, the whole world has known that four sick and evil men killed 52 lovely innocent people," said Ernest Adams, whose son James died between King's Cross and Russell Square.

"Yet now lawyers are talking and writing about 'apparent bombers'. Your inquest is not going to be about 52 apparent deaths, it will be about 52 real deaths caused by four real bombers."

He said the description was "very upsetting and insulting."

The coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, said they would look at coming up with a phrase that did not cause distress.

No doubt the process for the bereaved is extremely upsetting but until the process is complete, the accused bombers are merely accused; that is, apparent bombers.

The twisting and distortion of the process from the outset suggests that the truth will not be revealed.

What's more important, a comfortable fiction or an uncomfortable truth?

No comments:

Post a Comment