Hillsborough 1989 - today's court news

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:58 pm

Lord Rothbury wrote:Large numbers of fans turning up just before kickoff many the worse for drink and many without tickets must have contributed to the crush outside the ground which forced the decision to open the gates.This is no excuse for the behaviour of the police on the day and the years to come.

The independent inquiry who heard evidence for weeks concluded that they didn't contribute.

Obviously a bloke on a Burnley messageboard knows better

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:00 pm

Tall Paul wrote:The independent inquiry who heard evidence for weeks concluded that they didn't contribute.

Obviously a bloke on a Burnley messageboard knows better

Some have got the idea into their heads and won't let it go despite all the evidence to the contrary and the findings of the inquiry followed by the subsequent inquests.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:56 pm

THEWELLERNUT70 wrote:Link to the BBC documentary

https://youtu.be/d_PA7YlJAHY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of the information uncovered is breathtaking imo

Before people comment on the disaster and who have not seen the BBC documentary link above I urge you to watch it in it’s entirety.

Grumps · Post by **Grumps** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:31 pm

So bbc documentaries are all 100% correct?

JohnDearyMe · Post by **JohnDearyMe** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:34 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Some have got the idea into their heads and won't let it go despite all the evidence to the contrary and the findings of the inquiry followed by the subsequent inquests.

It's like talking to a brick wall with some people over Hillsborough. Very depressing

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:40 pm

Grumps wrote:So bbc documentaries are all 100% correct?

Have you watched that documentary?

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:47 pm

I accept the findings in full about how the crush happened. What I find strange is that out of all the football clubs you would have thought the ones who would never ever attempt to get into a ground ticketless and hence risk crowding issues would be Liverpool. As stated on here clubs put procedures in place when they play them. I can't comment on Burnley but a poster is adamant we do. A guy who works for us has a son who is a steward and when brfc played LFC stewards were given special instructions about it in the pre match briefing. He also stewards at other NW grounds and it is the same. Man City fans also have to be watched.

Grumps · Post by **Grumps** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:49 pm

South West Claret. wrote:Have you watched that documentary?

I have, and others, however that doesn't answer my question. If people want to form opinions based on official enqs, or court cases, or first hand knowledge then fair enough, but bbc documentaries? Really?

Grumps · Post by **Grumps** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:53 pm

bfcjg wrote:I accept the findings in full about how the crush happened. What I find strange is that out of all the football clubs you would have thought the ones who would never ever attempt to get into a ground ticketless and hence risk crowding issues would be Liverpool. As stated on here clubs put procedures in place when they play them. I can't comment on Burnley but a poster is adamant we do. A guy who works for us has a son who is a steward and when brfc played LFC stewards were given special instructions about it in the pre match briefing. He also stewards at other NW grounds and it is the same. Man City fans also have to be watched.

Police operational orders, and club planning certainly cover certain sets of fans who regularly turn up without tickets and will attempt to gain access, Liverpool are one of those clubs, as were Scottish clubs when they played at ewood.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:54 pm

You pose the wrong question it’s not about % but truth or lies.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:22 pm

The jury in the Duckenfield manslaughter trial has failed to reach a verdict.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... e-47800960" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wokingclaret · Post by **Wokingclaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:43 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:The jury in the Duckenfield manslaughter trial has failed to reach a verdict.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... e-47800960" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Disappointed

Well, he had a good defence lawyer

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:54 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:The jury in the Duckenfield manslaughter trial has failed to reach a verdict.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... e-47800960" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was always going to be difficult to pin the blame on 1 man, Duckenfield should have never been put in charge of such a high profile game with his lack of experience at policing matches at Hillsborough, was he incompetent ? yes, was he out of his depth ? yes.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:57 pm

Where does this go from here (assuming there isn’t an appeal)?

As the last verdict was that the 96 were unlawfully killed, does that automatically mean someone did act unlawfully and if so, who was it and will they be charged next?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:07 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:Where does this go from here (assuming there isn’t an appeal)?

As the last verdict was that the 96 were unlawfully killed, does that automatically mean someone did act unlawfully and if so, who was it and will they be charged next?

The prosecution has said they are going for a retrial.

The inquest verdict that 96 people were unlawfully killed, does not automatically mean that they were unlawfully killed; only that that particular jury thought so. Duckenfield's jury (or some of them) might have thought that inquest jury was wrong, or that the inquest jury was right but Duckenfield wasn't the killer, or that Duckenfield's degree of negligence didn't meet the "manslaughter" test of culpability.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:08 pm

AndyClaret wrote:It was always going to be difficult to pin the blame on 1 man, Duckenfield should have never been put in charge of such a high profile game with his lack of experience at policing matches at Hillsborough, was he incompetent ? yes, was he out of his depth ? yes.

Incompetent and or out of his depth is no excuse as he could have quite simply turned the job down, still guilty as charged as far as I and most informed people are concerned.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:18 pm

Got to love the pick and mix approach some of the usual suspects on here have to the justice system. Decision goes the way you think? It's right. Decision goes the other way? It's wrong and "informed" people (which presumably excludes jurors who just pitched up after all the evidence had been given and had a guess) know better.

I'd expect nothing different.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:31 pm

thatdberight wrote:Got to love the pick and mix approach some of the usual suspects on here have to the justice system. Decision goes the way you think? It's right. Decision goes the other way? It's wrong and "informed" people (which presumably excludes jurors who just pitched up after all the evidence had been given and had a guess) know better.

I'd expect nothing different.

What you expect or don’t expect has little or nothing to do with it.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:40 pm

South West Claret. wrote:Incompetent and or out of his depth is no excuse as he could have quite simply turned the job down, still guilty as charged as far as I and most informed people are concerned.

Everyone who continues to blame Liverpool fans after they were found to be not responsible gets shot down pretty quickly on here.

I hope, for balance, that the same people do the same with this post.

alf_resco · Post by **alf_resco** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:42 pm

South West Claret. wrote: still guilty as charged as far as I and most informed people are concerned.

So jurors who have sat through a 10-week trial are less "informed" than you?

The fact that a jury of 12 has failed to reach a verdict after getting on for 3 months would suggest it's not as cut and dried as you and other "informed people" seem to think.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:52 pm

There’s one salient point which I find simply beggars belief in the extreme in the whole Hillsborough investigations. That they simply would not apportion any blame whatsoever to thousands of fans arriving late , ****** up and ticketless . It’s staggering how they could reach that conclusion quite simply beyond belief . Back in the day Burnley were a fine example of fans in big numbers rocking up late , steaming and many without a ticket and we all knew the carnage it caused and a good chance the club or police would open the gates to avoid the crush, which lying toad Duckinfield did to relieve the crush ( after saying they’d been forced)

IMO he should be serving at least a few yrs in HMP as his woeful actions and incompetence ultimately contributed to the tragedy

conyoviejo · Post by **conyoviejo** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:55 pm

Funnily enough things are never clear cut in court.. A couple of weeks ago a guy who crashed his plane into a group of people killing many due to pilot error and negligence was cleared of manslaughter ..

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:23 pm

"Everyone who continues to blame Liverpool fans after they were found to be not responsible gets shot down pretty quickly on here."

Not a case of that at all, just being informed that their facts are wrong.

"I hope, for balance, that the same people do the same with this post."

Again balance also doesn't come into it as if something is wrong and not right...then it's wrong.

Wokingclaret · Post by **Wokingclaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:25 pm

conyoviejo wrote:Funnily enough things are never clear cut in court.. A couple of weeks ago a guy who crashed his plane into a group of people killing many due to pilot error and negligence was cleared of manslaughter ..

Another one: Michael Jackson

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:28 pm

Not surprising really.

There should be some punishment somewhere for the lies he told and subsequently admitted to.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:29 pm

"So jurors who have sat through a 10-week trial are less "informed" than you?"

As a group and the decision that they have come to yes.

"The fact that a jury of 12 has failed to reach a verdict after getting on for 3 months would suggest it's not as cut and dried as you and other "informed people" seem to think."

It matters not how much time they took if the individuals and as a group they could not decide on this case, I would suggest a more "informed" jury membership should sit in this case.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:30 pm

South West Claret. wrote:"Everyone who continues to blame Liverpool fans after they were found to be not responsible gets shot down pretty quickly on here."

Not a case of that at all, just being informed that their facts are wrong.

"I hope, for balance, that the same people do the same with this post."

Again balance also doesn't come into it as if something is wrong and not right...then it's wrong.

Maybe I should’ve said “corrected” rather than “shot down”. And you only need to look further up this thread for plenty of examples.

Why are you so sure that one verdict is wrong and the other is right?

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:37 pm

South West Claret. wrote:"So jurors who have sat through a 10-week trial are less "informed" than you?"

As a group and the decision that they have come to yes.

"The fact that a jury of 12 has failed to reach a verdict after getting on for 3 months would suggest it's not as cut and dried as you and other "informed people" seem to think."

It matters not how much time they took if the individuals and as a group they could not decide on this case, I would suggest a more "informed" jury membership should sit in this case.

What you really mean is someone who'll find him guilty.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:39 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:Everyone who continues to blame Liverpool fans after they were found to be not responsible gets shot down pretty quickly on here.

I hope, for balance, that the same people do the same with this post.

They won't.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:43 pm

conyoviejo wrote:Funnily enough things are never clear cut in court.. A couple of weeks ago a guy who crashed his plane into a group of people killing many due to pilot error and negligence was cleared of manslaughter ..

"negligence" - an undefined term that anyone can throw about on a message board.
"gross negligence manslaughter" - a defined term within our legal system against which behaviour can be tested.

Different.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:44 pm

Caballo wrote:What you really mean is someone who'll find him guilty.

I'm not sure he's that bothered about niceties such as verdicts; he seems to want to skip straight to the lynching.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:46 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:Maybe I should’ve said “corrected” rather than “shot down”. And you only need to look further up this thread for plenty of examples.

Why are you so sure that one verdict is wrong and the other is right?

Have you been in the Leppings Lane end at Hillsbough?

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:49 pm

Caballo wrote:What you really mean is someone who'll find him guilty.

I only want what most decent thinking people want and that's justice.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:54 pm

thatdberight wrote:I'm not sure he's that bothered about niceties such as verdicts; he seems to want to skip straight to the lynching.

Your mind reading is also wrong, not having a very good day so far are you.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:54 pm

South West Claret. wrote:Have you been in the Leppings Lane end at Hillsbough?

Yes, several times although only on the upper tier and not before around 2001.

Is this relevant?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:58 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:Yes, several times although only on the upper tier and not before around 2001.

Is this relevant?

You're "informed". SWC will count your vote (as long as it tallies with his).

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:04 pm

Time for your bedtime you two as your getting a bit tired judging by your posts...good night sleep tight

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:08 pm

South West Claret. wrote:"So jurors who have sat through a 10-week trial are less "informed" than you?"

As a group and the decision that they have come to yes.

"The fact that a jury of 12 has failed to reach a verdict after getting on for 3 months would suggest it's not as cut and dried as you and other "informed people" seem to think."

It matters not how much time they took if the individuals and as a group they could not decide on this case, I would suggest a more "informed" jury membership should sit in this case.

This is priceless, how arrogant are you to suggest that you are more informed than a jury who have listened to the whole evidence?

It’s clear that you have made your mind up what happened, based on what though? Surely it cannot be possible for you to have as much evidence as a jury?

He may subsequently be found guilty in a retrial but for you to claim that with such certainty is unbelievably arrogant. Thankfully there are others who are more open minded than you who sit on our juries.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:08 pm

South West Claret. wrote:I only want what most decent thinking people want and that's justice.

Yes, but there are many "thinking decent people" who believe that justice is better served if you don't rig the jury and have a sham trial.

Wokingclaret · Post by **Wokingclaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:11 pm

Statement from Liverpool and Manchester Mayor's....seems sensible

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk ... ugh-trial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:13 pm

Been hell of a long time for the jury to be out but if they cannot come to a decision, even at 10-2, then it is right that they are stood down. The CPS have immediately confirmed they will want a retrial.

Graham Mackrell has been found guilty though.

Wokingclaret · Post by **Wokingclaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:13 pm

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:This is priceless, how arrogant are you to suggest that you are more informed than a jury who have listened to the whole evidence?

It’s clear that you have made your mind up what happened, based on what though? Surely it cannot be possible for you to have as much evidence as a jury?

He may subsequently be found guilty in a retrial but for you to claim that with such certainty is unbelievably arrogant. Thankfully there are others who are more open minded than you who sit on our juries.

As I said earlier, he had a good defence lawyer, never had to speak at the trail himself.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:15 pm

South West Claret. wrote:I only want what most decent thinking people want and that's justice.

What you want or dont want has little or nothing to do with it.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:16 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:As I said earlier, he had a good defence lawyer, never had to speak at the trail himself.

And that is his right, it doesn’t make him guilty.

Wokingclaret · Post by **Wokingclaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:17 pm

tim_noone wrote:What you want or dont want has little or nothing to do with it.

That's absolutely fine, but tell the families the same....

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:18 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:Statement from Liverpool and Manchester Mayor's....seems sensible

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk ... ugh-trial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Sorry - this page cannot be found"

Very insightful

Wokingclaret · Post by **Wokingclaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:18 pm

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:And that is his right, it doesn’t make him guilty.

or innocent

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:19 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:That's absolutely fine, but tell the families the same....

This is why we have a justice system and not just a storage facility full of pitchforks.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:20 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:As I said earlier, he had a good defence lawyer, never had to speak at the trail himself.

I doubt there would be much point. This is an unusual trial in that few of the facts are in doubt - we know what happened. The question isn't whether Duckenfield's actions were wrong - obviously they were. The question is whether Duckenfield's actions were so reckless that they went beyond incompetence and into criminal activity. A "not guilty" plea is all that's needed to establish Duckenfield's position on that.

Wokingclaret · Post by **Wokingclaret** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:20 pm

thatdberight wrote:"Sorry - this page cannot be found"

Very insightful

Hmm looks like they took it down