Mountbatten assain refuses to meet father of child he killed

[Endoftheworldasweknowit]

RTE tonight showed a documentary to mark the 30th anniversary of the assination of Lord Mountbatten and his party at Mullaghmore in 1979. The father of one of the victims was interviewed and he discussed candidly his childs murder by Thomas McMahon at Mullaghmore.
McMahon was jailed in 1980 for his part in the murders but was released subsequently under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Another man was also out on trial in relation to the murders but was found not guilty as there was an absence of forensic evidence linking him to the killings. Both men were taken into custody prior to the device exploding. McMahon's accomplice claimed he'd never met McMahon before and had been given a lift by McMahon when they were stopped by Gardai in Longford. McMahon's accomplice was a relative of a former Sinn Fein politician and never served any time in relation to this offence.
Mr Maxwell the parent of the child murdered at Mullaghmore said he'd attempted to make contact with McMahon who was shown on TV footage clearly smiling as he entered the courthouse in relation to the childs murder to meet him. He said a meeting would give a chance to understand and that he wasn't bitter. He said no one was completely evil and that he believed that there was good in everyone. Mr McMahon had refused to meet him to discuss why he killed his son.
Having lost a child and tried to cope with his grief and loss, does the Republican Movement owe this man anything and if so should they not insist that their member meet with Mr Maxwell to help him come to terms with the appalling attrocity that was visted on him and his family?

[Mercurial]

Yes and they should.

[Sam Lord]

How do you he was involved? Because he was jailed?

Prisons all over the world are filled with people who had no connection with the offence they were charged with ...

If McMahon wants to put the matter behind him I think he has the right to..

[mothball]

How can this even remotely be considered political debate? If someone doesn't want to meet someone else then what is anyone going to do about it?

[Endoftheworldasweknowit]

How do you he was involved? Because he was jailed?
If McMahon wants to put the matter behind him I think he has the right to..

Because he was convicted of the murders on the basis of forensic evidence that placed him at the scene of the crime! If he was innocent of the crime there would be nothing to put behind him and presumabley he'd be happy to talk.

[Horace Horse]

This thread should be closed.

[Northside Provisional]

Your post is misleading.

You suggest that Mr.McMahon murdered this child. Untrue this child was tragically killed in an assassination of a member of the British Royal Family and ex-Commander of the UK armed forces.

Murder is defined as:

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent

As far as I am aware Mr McMahon did not detonate the bomb as he was arrested beforehand.

The only intent in this instance was towards Mountbatten.

Also Mountbatten was aware that he was a target.

[truthisfree]

How can this even remotely be considered political debate? If someone doesn't want to meet someone else then what is anyone going to do about it?

Agreed, this is just stirring sh*t for the sake of it.

[lapsedmethodist]

How do you he was involved? Because he was jailed?

Prisons all over the world are filled with people who had no connection with the offence they were charged with ...

If McMahon wants to put the matter behind him I think he has the right to..

Considering Mr. Maxwell has set up a non-sectarian school, you'd think that people could at least meet him halfway.
And if McMahon wasn't guilty, why didn't those who were come forward? Why did they let him rot in jail?

[Mercurial]

How can this even remotely be considered political debate? If someone doesn't want to meet someone else then what is anyone going to do about it?

Presumably, if the man who murdered the child was acting on behalf of a group with political motives, we can ask whether there is a moral obligation on the part of the murderer to meet with the family of the child he murdered, or at the very least, whether there is an obligation on the part of those who authorised the attack to assist the innocent victims of their actions in any way they can, to come to terms with their grief. I think this qualifies as being (at least remotely) a political debate, given that we expect certain justifications of political violence, which we do not normally expect of non-political crimes.