However, they will be hoping the coronial inquest which began in Christchurch this week will answer some of their questions about the events of March 15.
The first witness at the inquest, Detective Senior Sergeant Craig Farrant, reminded us of the terrifying speed of the killings — "in the space of 19 minutes, 49 people from our community had been murdered, and attempts were made to murder a further 42 people, leaving many with life-threatening injuries".
The death toll later rose to 51.
For the families, it will have seemed a long time to wait for the official cause of death to be established for each of the victims, and to find out whether any of the deaths could have been avoided.
But both the investigation by the New Zealand police and the coronial investigation are the largest undertaken here.
Those affected by the killings and attempted murders will be expecting the preparation for the inquest to have been meticulous.
It has some big issues to examine, as well as the causes of deaths.
These include how the events unfolded, the response times by police and emergency services, steps taken to stop the killer, Christchurch Hospital’s response, co-ordination between services and whether the terrorist had any direct assistance from anyone on the day of the killings.
Deputy chief coroner Brigitte Windley has been clear the inquest is not about establishing liability or negligence but accountability for actions or inactions.
Such inquiries are designed to make findings and recommendations to prevent deaths in similar circumstances but cannot impose penalties or award compensation.
In this instance, it follows the trial of the gunman and the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the shootings which delivered its findings at the end of 2020.
To add to the complexity, the 51 people who died came from 21 countries and spoke 13 different languages. Extra measures have been taken to ensure the immediate whānau are fully supported and enabled to participate.
The court is taking a "trauma-informed" approach, particularly regarding people making informed choices about viewing sensitive material disclosed to the interested parties.
That approach was evident in the respectful, dignified, and sensitive way the proceedings opened.
And another thing
It was good to see Clutha District Council praised for the openness of its meetings and workshops in the recently released report from Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier.
The council was one of eight around the country whose practices were examined by his investigators following concerns councils were using workshops and other informal meetings to make decisions behind closed doors.
While he did not find evidence of workshop decision-making within the eight councils he reviewed, we wonder if quasi decision-making at such events occurs elsewhere but is difficult to establish because of poor record keeping of such events.
Judge Boshier discovered a range of reasons council officials and elected members did not want open workshops, including because asking questions could make them look stupid. Judge Boshier said elected members should be resilient enough to withstand reasonable public scrutiny.
We agree, although we also recognise online criticism of councillors, and indeed council staff, can go well beyond what is reasonable.
He also looked at how councils were excluding the public from council meetings and found three of the eight councils had cited allowing free and frank expression of opinion as a reason for going into committee, despite the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act specifically ruling that out.
We hope all councils will read Judge Boshier’s report carefully and improve the transparency of their practices as required.
There is no excuse for any of them to be continuing to play fast and loose with the transparency requirements of the LGOIMA or the Local Government Act.
