So did all roads lead here? To a grand ballroom in the Europa hotel. Once it was Europe's most bombed hotel. Today, crystal chandeliers glinted above us whilst all around sat people representative of every shade of hurt caused by the troubles.
The Eames Bradley launch was no ordinary news conference, rather a microcosm of the conflict of the last four decades. Before it began the relatives of IRA victims and loyalist victims argued in front of the cameras. Jim Allister was amongst a number of people holding placards at the back emblazoned "the wages of murder is £12,000". A couple of feet from me stood victims campaigner Hazlett Lynch holding up a big picture of his brother, Constable Kenneth Norman Lynch, who was murdered by the IRA in 1977.
Before the proceedings got underway, the former unionist MLA Cedric Wilson (once known as the "serial protestor") turned his ire on Gerry Adams. Was this man a victim or a perpetrator, he asked Lord Eames, who did not answer. It was the first of several interruptions from Mr Wilson.
After a brief endorsement from the South African mediator Brian Currin, the report's two principal co-authors made their pitch. It helped that they are both experienced preachers and orators. Before such a divided audience the surprise wasn't that they were interrupted, but that they commanded a respectful hearing for so long.
They apologised for the timing of their recommendation that all families of troubles victims should get £12,000, but not for the proposal itself. Denis Bradley stressed that the money wasn't intended as compensation but as recognition - a way of telling the families that society is "sorry for their troubles".
Besides defending their suggested payments, the authors sketched out their ideas for a five year £160 million legacy commission. They aren't proposing an amnesty but leaving it to the commission to suggest how a line might be drawn at the end of its term.
Lord Eames and Mr Bradley went beyond victims issues. Their suggested £100 million bursary scheme should tackle social problems like sectarianism, trauma and addiction. They even questioned whether separate schools for those of different denominations act as an obstacle to reconciliation.
They accused the local parties of politicising victims issues. It's as if, Denis Bradley argued, the parties were allowed to have a political accommodation up at Stormont but the people were not allowed to have a human accommodation.
It was powerful stuff, although the pictures of the exchanges between victims campaigners are likely to dominate the TV news bulletins. At one point it looked like the presentations might be halted, but eventually the speakers pressed on. Bizarrely, nationalists in the audience were demanding that the police step in to arrest or take out the protesting unionists. "Where's Hugh Orde?" they cried, then with typical Belfast humour someone added "no wonder he didn't get the job". The Chief Constable was sitting in the audience.
So where do we go from here? The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have a holding line that the report should be carefully considered. Unless the mood changes in the weeks ahead, there doesn't seem to be any sign of a consensus in favour of the £12,000 payments.
If the money is not intended as compensation, but as recognition, surely the question arises whether some other public form of recognition might win support which does not involve a wad of cash? For example, the Eames Bradley report explores the possibility of a video archive of stories, perhaps in a museum, but concludes that a shared memorial cannot be agreed at this time. Handled sensitively, would giving every family a chance to be part of such a "living memorial" be a better way of saying "sorry for your troubles" than £12,000?
The government might find it easier to park the contentious payments and move ahead with the legacy commission and the bursary. However, given the economic climate, MPs might still baulk at the projected £260 million price tag.
The report's authors argue that their ideas would actually save money as continuing with piece meal inquiries might cost as much as £1 billion. But after the Saville inquiry experience, few politicians believe any further inquiries will be approved. If the government adopts the Westminster Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's recommendation that all future inquiries should have cross community support from the Assembly, unionists would probably veto any such probes.
So the financial case has yet to be concluded. And bearing in mind the fractious scenes in the Europa hotel ballroom, the government will think long and hard before deciding how many of the Eames Bradley recommendations might command a political consensus.
I'm 