Excuse me, please: what is this? No sooner is Martin McGuinness named in Saville Inquiry as the man who allegedly fired the first shot on Bloody Sunday than Prof Dermot Walsh effectively denounces the report in this newspaper. "That [the claim] appears alongside the assertion that Mr McGuinness has so far failed to respond positively to an invitation to give a statement would seem to lend some spurious credibility to the allegation."
I see. The word "spurious" is already been offered about evidence which is going to come from the British side in the inquiry even before it is being heard - and not from counsel representing Martin McGuinness, or any of his friends in the Bogside, from whom one might expect a swift denunciation of evidence which they probably do not like, but from the professor of law at the University of Limerick, no less.
"Spurious"
When Prof Walsh said that Martin McGuinness's failure to provide a submission to the inquiry provided "spurious credibility" to the claim that he fired a Thompson submachine gun at British soldiers before the massacre began, did he actually meant "spurious"? According to the Oxford Dictionary, this means "superficially resembling or simulating something, but lacking its genuine character or qualities; not true or genuine; false, counterfeit. . .of a piece of writing, a word, etc. not proceeding from the reputed origin, source or author; not genuine or authentic. . .Of an imitation, counterfeit, etc: characterised by spuriousness or falseness."
Early days, surely, to be using such language about evidence which has not been heard and which might, indeed, well be thoroughly risible or irrelevant when it is actually presented. Prof Walsh himself declares: "Ultimately it will be a matter for the inquiry to determine what credence, if any, to attach to the security documents." Or does he? For he then proceeds to decide what credence should be applied to the McGuinness allegations: "Anyone familiar with the creative capacity of the secret services to engage in dirty tricks, particularly in connection with the conflict in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, will be wary about attaching any significance to the documents."
Ah. So we should be wary about attaching any significance to documents which are to be presented to the inquiry, but not to the failure of the then leader of the IRA in Derry to make a submission to the inquiry. "There are many legitimate reasons why he should have delayed up to now. Indeed, he is not alone in this. Many senior political and security figures have yet to submit such statements."
And are these people's motives to be accorded the legitimacy which the professor of law in Limerick confers on Martin McGuinness' silence to date? Or are tribal fault-lines already appearing in response to what is being learned at the inquiry, so that far from its effects being healing and salutary, the consequences are the opposite of what its authors intended? Certainly, the enthusiasm with which the British press leapt on the allegation that Martin McGuinness fired the first shot of the day suggests that, far from people wanting to learn all that has to be learned from Saville, there is already an inclination to take an a la carte approach to it.
High expectations
However, Dermot Walsh is spot-on when, after dismissing the Widgery inquiry - a more contemptible and considered insult to the dead could scarcely have been contrived - he adds: "It is generally assumed that the truth will place the blame fully and squarely on the army. The truth, however, is rarely that simple or accommodating."
And that is the problem with this inquiry. Expectations in nationalist Ireland are already running high that there will be one outcome - excoriation and even prosecution of the paratroopers, their commanding officers and their political leaders - and anything short of that will be a whitewash. But of course Bloody Sunday did not occur in a vacuum; it occurred in the midst of a rising tempo of terrorism from both paramilitaries and the state. Some, especially in the British military, will want to broaden the focus away from just the events of the day.
So it is unlikely that Martin McGuinness will be given the opportunity, as Dermot Walsh suggests, to dismiss the documents in which an informer alleges he fired the first shot of the day by "a simple denial". This is not an inquiry of simple denials: once in the witness box, every aspect of a witness's life might be open to investigation.
No immunity
And what soldier who slew unarmed men on Bloody Sunday, what IRA man who might have been responsible for perfectly dreadful acts of terrorism before or after Bloody Sunday would not seek refuge in lawful silence when asked compromising questions? It might well be the case that Saville has been fatally hamstrung by the early determination not to grant witnesses immunity from prosecution. But, in common law, nobody is obliged to give evidence against themselves. Lord Saville has ruled that witnesses if subpoenaed must appear; but they need not answer incriminating questions.
And if Martin McGuinness takes that option, he will probably be doing no more nor less than many figures in the British military and political establishment are likely to do. How ironic that they should have so much in common, and that the quest for truth might be fatally impaired by a parallel quest for justice. In reality, truth and justice are seldom amiable bedfellows. I suspect that Saville will show why.