Duckinfield not guilty

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:13 pm

MRG wrote:It’s the lies that I find the most difficult to accept, totally unforgivable. An horrific cowardly man but he’s not intentionally killed anybody.

I don’t think anyone would ever suggest he intentionally killed anyone.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:25 pm

ClaretTony wrote:It’s not an interesting point, it is fact.

Only because the courts decreed it was unlawful. IMO it shouldn't have been. Poor decisions were made at the time but there was nothing wilful or illegal about them. I'm purely talking about the incident on the day, not the possible lies and cover ups afterwards.

How can poor decision making be classed as unlawful

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:28 pm

Firthy wrote:Only because the courts decreed it was unlawful. IMO it shouldn't have been. Poor decisions were made at the time but there was nothing wilful or illegal about them. I'm purely talking about the incident on the day, not the possible lies and cover ups afterwards.

How can poor decision making be classed as unlawful

Poor decisions which led to people being killed unlawfully.

Grumps · Post by **Grumps** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:32 pm

Typical experts on here, who know better than the jury who sat through the trial, heard all the evidence, and found him not guilty

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:39 pm

Firthy wrote:Only because the courts decreed it was unlawful. IMO it shouldn't have been. Poor decisions were made at the time but there was nothing wilful or illegal about them. I'm purely talking about the incident on the day, not the possible lies and cover ups afterwards.

How can poor decision making be classed as unlawful

Because those poor decisions led to deaths.

arise_sir_charge · Post by **arise_sir_charge** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:50 pm

Typical of every Hillsborough thread that has ever appeared in this forum.

Justice in this case will, it seems, only be served once Duckenfield is found guilty......whether that is in fact the right decision or not.

The fact more than one jury has decided he isn’t guilty still doesn’t stop the cries for ‘justice’ albeit it isn’t justice that folk want it’s Duckenfield taking the blame.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:51 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Because those poor decisions led to deaths.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm in no way condoning the lies and cover ups afterwards but he didn't make any unlawful decisions at the time, as I've said, just poor ones. It might make him responsible in part and bad at his job but none of the deaths were intentional and trying to make him a scapegoat won't change what happened.

tarkys_ears · Post by **tarkys_ears** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:53 pm

arise_sir_charge wrote:Typical of every Hillsborough thread that has ever appeared in this forum.

Justice in this case will, it seems, only be served once Duckenfield is found guilty......whether that is in fact the right decision or not.

The fact more than one jury has decided he isn’t guilty still doesn’t stop the cries for ‘justice’ albeit it isn’t justice that folk want it’s Duckenfield taking the blame.

Justice or vengeance?

Justice has been done, yet people aren't happy with it. Do they want this man to be punished no matter what? Seems so.

Rumbletonk · Post by **Rumbletonk** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:53 pm

I can understand the why some families of those that
tragically died might want a guilty verdict. Who knows how you'd feel if you were in their situation.

I can't understand why anyone not directly affected would want to see him convicted of manslaughter. That means he made a decision knowing that people would probably die

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:56 pm

Firthy wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm in no way condoning the lies and cover ups afterwards but he didn't make any unlawful decisions at the time, as I've said, just poor ones. It might make him responsible in part and bad at his job but none of the deaths were intentional and trying to make him a scapegoat won't change what happened.

Totally agree with you that the deaths weren’t intentional but that should not mean he isn’t responsible.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:59 pm

MRG wrote:It’s the lies that I find the most difficult to accept, totally unforgivable. An horrific cowardly man but he’s not intentionally killed anybody.

negligence that results in a death, or in this case 96 deaths, is every bit as bad as intent.

if you honestly want to live in some sort of society where folk can literally get away with folk dying so trivially i suggest you go and live there.

there is nothing like a hillsborough or mccann thread for exposing the truly ignorant and hideous of us.

Grumps · Post by **Grumps** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:00 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Totally agree with you that the deaths weren’t intentional but that should not mean he isn’t responsible.

He's been found not guilty!!!!

Rumbletonk · Post by **Rumbletonk** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:01 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Totally agree with you that the deaths weren’t intentional but that should not mean he isn’t responsible.

Would you have liked to see him convicted of manslaughter? Manslaughter!!!

Rumbletonk · Post by **Rumbletonk** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:02 pm

yTib wrote:negligence that results in a death, or in this case 96 deaths, is every bit as bad as intent.

if you honestly want to live in some sort of society where folk can literally get away with folk dying so trivially i suggest you go and live there.

there is nothing like a hillsborough or mccann thread for exposing the truly ignorant and hideous of us.

It is absolutely not the same as intent

maccclaret · Post by **maccclaret** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:04 pm

Obviously we are all only commenting on what is reported; we haven’t heard the evidence.
A jury, which did hear the evidence, returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Even so, I think today’s verdict is probably fair enough.
For all he made decisions with disastrous consequences, it’s hard to see that it was all his fault.
To be a football fan at that time was to more or less be a criminal and that mentality will have informed many decisions taken about that match, starting with choosing an unsafe venue.
S Yorks police were the least friendly of the unfriendly forces around the country and the culture of the force will undoubtedly have influenced decisions taken about the treatment of human beings for whom there was little but contempt.
Yes it as unlawful killing, but Dukinfield is not the only one who should have been in the dock.

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:06 pm

Rumbletonk wrote:Would you have liked to see him convicted of manslaughter? Manslaughter!!!

I think he’s very fortunate not to have been convicted of gross negligence manslaughter

Grumps · Post by **Grumps** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:09 pm

ClaretTony wrote:I think he’s very fortunate not to have been convicted of gross negligence manslaughter

How much of the evidence did you hear to come to that decision?

Rumbletonk · Post by **Rumbletonk** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:12 pm

The prosecution would have had to prove he knew the order he gave would result in an obvious risk of death.

paulatky · Post by **paulatky** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:17 pm

Grumps wrote:Only real verdict there could be, it might have been a bad decision to open the gates, but it might have been the only one avaible, it wasn't done in bad faith. Any cover ups after the events were disgraceful, but that wasn't what was on trial here.

The reason he should have been found guilty is because once he had given the order to open the main gates ,that should have been done after gaving given the order to close the gates to that middle pen.

It was his first game in charge and he did nothing to familiarise himself with the stadium before the game. There was also friction with his predecessor which meant there was no proper handover

paulatky · Post by **paulatky** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:18 pm

paulatky wrote:The reason he should have been found guilty is because once he had given the order to open the main gates ,that should have been done after giving the order to close the gates to that middle pen.

It was his first game in charge and he did nothing to familiarise himself with the stadium before the game. There was also friction with his predecessor which meant there was no proper handover

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:20 pm

Unfortunately the police appear to be above the law. How anyone can have any faith that they would not have a case manipulated by police if they were ever on the wrong side of them cannot have seen the absolute disgraceful way they treat the families of this tragedy. This is the sort of thing that we think happens around the world in countries famous for corruption etc. Make no mistake that the worst cover ups and manipulation happen right here under our very noses, most likely on a daily basis.

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:23 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Totally agree with you that the deaths weren’t intentional but that should not mean he isn’t responsible.

Quite right CT.

Due process of law has deemed he isn't responsible.

paulatky · Post by **paulatky** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:23 pm

Grumps wrote:Exactly, I wonder what other decision he could have made, other than to open the gates, imagine the outcry if fans had died outside because he refused to open the gates, he was in an difficult position, and it could have been that people died whichever decision he made.

He could have made the decision to close the gates to the middle pens and making sure they were securely closed before giving the order to open the main gates. If he had familiarised hims himself with the stadium before the game he would have known that was crucial

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:25 pm

Rumbletonk wrote:It is absolutely not the same as intent

i really don't know what about this is so very difficult.

if i dug a huge hole in the middle of a pavement and failed to warn people there there was a big hole and then someone fell into the hole and died of course i would not have intended them to die.

but my negligence would be just as bad. somebody would still be dead and their family wouldn't be so pragmatic in their reasoning.

the level of defense for this man is mind-blowing. if this had happened to burnley fans i suspect there would be very different attitudes on here.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:29 pm

paulatky wrote:The reason he should have been found guilty is because once he had given the order to open the main gates ,that should have been done after gaving given the order to close the gates to that middle pen.

It was his first game in charge and he did nothing to familiarise himself with the stadium before the game. There was also friction with his predecessor which meant there was no proper handover

The man was throughly unprepared for the job in terms of ability, experience or knowledge of the ground (probably made worse for its safety certificate being void at the time). He wasn’t aware of any risk of his actions, thus it couldn’t be gross negligence. He should however have involuntary manslaughter against his name for the same reason.

Sadly the fact he lied and the subsequent coverup attempt are not the elements on trial in this adjudication, regardless of how abhorrent a character that he has proven to be.

paulatky · Post by **paulatky** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:32 pm

Grumps wrote:Typical experts on here, who know better than the jury who sat through the trial, heard all the evidence, and found him not guilty

The jury are just ordinary people not experts and many of the 12 would be lead by the most forthright member of that jury. The majority of them were probably not football fans and had never attended a football match at which the ground was surrounded by fences and contained segregated pens on the terraces.
Burnley played a quarter final against Sheff Wednesay there a few years earlier and our grouo paid extra to sit in the seats in the upper tier as we knew how potentially dangerous the lower section of the Leppings Lane end was. At that was before the internet but people knew by word of mouth the potential dangers. And thats something Duckenfield should have been aware of

Rumbletonk · Post by **Rumbletonk** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:35 pm

yTib wrote:i really don't know what about this is so very difficult.

if i dug a huge hole in the middle of a pavement and failed to warn people there there was a big hole and then someone fell into the hole and died of course i would not have intended them to die.

but my negligence would be just as bad. somebody would still be dead and their family wouldn't be so pragmatic in their reasoning.

the level of defense for this man is mind-blowing. if this had happened to burnley fans i suspect there would be very different attitudes on here.

It might be the same in your head. To be guilty of manslaughter he would have known he was probably going to cause the loss of life. Do you think that was the case>

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:39 pm

Rumbletonk wrote:It might be the same in your head. To be guilty of manslaughter he would have known he was probably going to cause the loss of life. Do you think that was the case>

i have just given you a practical example of how negligence is just as bad as intent.

i'm sorry i can't put it in even simpler terms.

arise_sir_charge · Post by **arise_sir_charge** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:40 pm

yTib wrote:i really don't know what about this is so very difficult.

if i dug a huge hole in the middle of a pavement and failed to warn people there there was a big hole and then someone fell into the hole and died of course i would not have intended them to die.

but my negligence would be just as bad. somebody would still be dead and their family wouldn't be so pragmatic in their reasoning.

the level of defense for this man is mind-blowing. if this had happened to burnley fans i suspect there would be very different attitudes on here.

How about, if you’d dug a big hole, on the basis that a hole needed digging in that spot or else someone would fall down the hole that was a little bit further along the pavement? Also you dug that big hole, in the heat of the moment, under extreme pressure on a pavement that to be quite honest wasn’t fit for purpose to start with because many people had come close to falling down big holes on that pavement in the previous years?

How negligent would you be then?

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:44 pm

arise_sir_charge wrote:How about, if you’d dug a big hole, on the basis that a hole needed digging in that spot or else someone would fall down the hole that was a little bit further along the pavement? Also you dug that big hole, in the heat of the moment, under extreme pressure on a pavement that to be quite honest wasn’t fit for purpose to start with because many people had come close to falling down big holes on that pavement in the previous years?

How negligent would you be then?

When you’re in a hole stop digging

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:45 pm

I'm just trying to keep up with what we're supposed to think now. Because people who refused to accept the decisions of the legal process were heroes. Then anybody who didn't accept the legal process's outcome was despicable. And now we're back to the first stance. Is that right? I need to know what to think.

Rumbletonk · Post by **Rumbletonk** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:49 pm

If you walked away from your hole knowing people would die you would be guilty of manslaughter. If you didn't know the hole would probably cause people to lose their lives then you wouldn't.

That's as simple as I can make it.

Nonayforever · Post by **Nonayforever** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:13 pm

All I have ever read and heard about this case is the prosecution trying to find someone accountable for the unfortunate deaths.
I've never really heard anything about the shocking cages around the pitch perimeter locking the fans into the terraces.
It was the lack of an escape route which caused the tragedy.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:33 pm

yTib wrote:it's sickening that folk still hold this view after all this time.

a crowd doesn't think with a single mind; it is dynamic and unpredictable.

it needs somebody competent to direct and manage such an entity.

this man failed and people died. how many decades should it take to find out why your family died at a football match?

I think people are well aware of why so many died, it was a tragedy. It doesn't require a scape goat to be made of anyone. Duckenfield would have required a crystal ball to foresee the outcome of his decision to open the gates.
The sense of loss the relatives and friends must feel will be terrible, but would finding Duckenfield guilty make anybody feel better. We ask human beings to go out on a limb and take responsibility, but being human beings they can make mistakes. If we pilloried everyone who makes a mistake there would be a massive shortage of leaders. No one would want the job.
Its time to let it rest.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:04 pm

paulatky wrote:The jury are just ordinary people not experts and many of the 12 would be lead by the most forthright member of that jury. The majority of them were probably not football fans and had never attended a football match at which the ground was surrounded by fences and contained segregated pens on the terraces.
Burnley played a quarter final against Sheff Wednesay there a few years earlier and our grouo paid extra to sit in the seats in the upper tier as we knew how potentially dangerous the lower section of the Leppings Lane end was. At that was before the internet but people knew by word of mouth the potential dangers. And thats something Duckenfield should have been aware of

Isn’t that 3 juries in criminal courts that haven’t found him guilty. There might have been a jury that were lead by a forthright member or emotion but they weren’t doing a criminal trial

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:04 pm

poor form to try to isolate one bloke to carry the can for such a disaster, had he been a relative of any of you who seem so sure and ready to condemn, I rather doubt you would be so swift to judge him.
One man, who went to do a shift back in the halcyon days when fans were deemed bad enough to have to be caged in due to previous shocking behaviour. Not his decision to cage fans in.

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:15 pm

There would have been far fewer deaths if any had the fences not been in place and the reasons for those fences lays squarely at the behaviour of some football supporters over several seasons.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:27 pm

They can prosecute plenty more people. The architect who designed the fences, for example. The builder who erected them. The person who issued the ground safety certificate. The ground safety officer. The people who appointed all those people. The chairman of Sheffield Wednesday. The person who appointed the chairman of Sheffield Wednesday. Loads of people messed up and caused those deaths. Duckenfield is the high profile target partly because he was the one whose mistake was the most proximate to the tragedy, and because he became public enemy number one (with good reason) because of his lies after the event.

But those lies were after the event, so are not relevant to his guilt or innocence.

COBBLE · Post by **COBBLE** » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:47 pm

The guilt rests with the culture and institutional knowledge of the time. That's everyone in authority, guilty , who thought (probably didn't even think) that the ground layout and capacity were adequate. Its a cop out to blame one man because the scale of this tragedy demands a culprit. Looking back after the Newcastle semi final and the powerful 'press,' that took me about 20 minutes to visit the loo having to force my way past other Burnley fans, I know now that this was a disaster waiting to happen. There were far, far, too many people in Leppings Lane that day. That was long before the disaster.

However lying is however an insult to the deceased and should be dealt with by the court.

jackmiggins · Post by **jackmiggins** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:23 am

I can most definitely confirm that, as a fan visiting many grounds in the 70’s & 80’s, including Hillsborough & Turf Moor, this could have happened anywhere. The main concern then, was crowd violence, which was very real. Difficult to imagine now just how bad this was, but on the day would have been the main focus. Hindsight can not convict a man .......end of.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:57 am

In this country the tests for the tort of negligence in civil law are:
A duty of care must exist
That duty must be broken
The breaking of the duty resulted in harm
It must be reasonably foreseeable that harm would result
Accepting that this was a criminal case to convict on gross negligence manslaughter you would still have to prove negligence and part of that is foreseeability.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:09 am

jackmiggins wrote:I can most definitely confirm that, as a fan visiting many grounds in the 70’s & 80’s, including Hillsborough & Turf Moor, this could have happened anywhere. The main concern then, was crowd violence, which was very real. Difficult to imagine now just how bad this was, but on the day would have been the main focus. Hindsight can not convict a man .......end of.

Been waiting for the word hindsight. This is exactly it. "In hindsight" Well we don't have crystal balls and hindsight is good for changing things to make sure there is less chance of something happening again but it does nothing to change events that have occurred. All it does is perpetuate the blame culture.

Very little is mentioned about the behaviour of the supporters and crowd because it is such a sensitive subject but it did play a part in what happened and to try and lay the blame at any individuals door is wrong.

timshorts · Post by **timshorts** » Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:14 pm

tim_noone wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:58 pm
Heysel.39 Dead 600 injured.

The big difference is that Hillsborough was the result of an unfortunate cummulation of events, some of which were negligent. Lying about it afterwards didn't actually cause any deaths.

Heysel on the other hand......

Woodleyclaret · Post by **Woodleyclaret** » Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:11 am

The truth re who did what will never come out
Like lots of fans on here I was in the Lepping lane end for our semi final v Newcastle it was always the wrong end to house the vast hoards that follow Liverpool
But back in the past fans did turn up without tickets for games
It still causes issues today with fans coming on 10 mins before kickoff

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:28 am

The Establishment in this country is rotten to its very core. It should be no surprise to see maggots drop out of it.

Claret Toni · Post by **Claret Toni** » Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:28 pm

If you're likening Duckenfield to a maggot, I'd be pretty p1ssed off if I were a maggot.