• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Anne Williams-Hillsborough inquest into sons death-PLEASE SIGN

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fagan74

6CM Follower
Member
Anne Williams is fighting a battle to get a proper inquest in to her son's death:

"Kevin Williams died in the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, Kevin's Inquests were riddled with corruption, suppressing of vital evidence and perverting the course of JUSTICE, Kevin did not die from Traumatic Asphyxia or in an accident I will not pick up his death certificate until we get the course of death put right and the accidental death verdict struck down. Kevin does not relate to the 3.15pm cut off point.I want a new inquest where all the witnesses will be called to give evidence so the jury will know exactly what happened to Kevin at Hillsborough. I have all the evidence under section 13 of the coroners act and have been refused 3 times by the attorney generals office, I want the Attorney General to look at the evidence again and send Kevin's case back to the divisional court recommending a new inquest into the death of my son."


http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19149

Don't forget to confirm the email.

If Anne gets this it will open everything up and every Red needs to get behind this. She is a great woman and after meeting her I will do all I can to help her cause.
Please pass on via twitter and facebook.

Many thanks

Chris
 
Welcome to the site Pazzo.

Lets all sign up folks, get some momentum going on this.
 
[quote author=Pazzo link=topic=47298.msg1416995#msg1416995 date=1319566700]
Done.

Should really be something everyone should do.
[/quote]

Thanks for that, the number so far is only 4,706 so more help the better.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47298.msg1416999#msg1416999 date=1319567162]
What does Kevin's mother believe he died from ?
[/quote]

AN OVERVIEW - KEVIN WILLIAMS

Kevin Daniel Williams born 27th May 1973 and died 15th April 1989 at the Hillsborough Football ground.

The inquest into Kevin Williams death began on the 2nd May 1990. An officer read out a summary to the court of all Kevin's movements on he day leading up to his death at Hillsborough.

The summary told of two police officers who had gone to the aid of Kevin (1) PC Bruder who saw Kevin convulsing and on examination found he had a pulse. (2) WPC Martin who resuscitated Kevin and found a pulse at 4:00pm, but was later pronounced dead at 4:06pm.

Next in the witness box was Dr. Slater the pathologist who had done Kevin's autopsy. He told the court that Kevin had died at 3:06pm of the worst kind of traumatic asphyxia (This was untrue, Kevin actually died of neck injuries).


The coroner wanted to introduce a 3:15pm cut off point when in his opinion everyone of the then 95 had died (Tony Bland died years later). In desperation the coroner decided on a plan to get the two witnesses Bruder and Martin to change their statements.

Evidence shows that on 3rd May (the in-between day) there was an arranged plan. The coroner wanted an Inspector Sawers to visit the witness Bruder and so issued a medical brief and his coroner office telephone number where he would have Dr. Slater lay in wait. Inspector Sawers would visit Mr. Bruder's home to mislead him using a ploy so to use the telephone, to ring the coroner office thereby allowing Dr. Slater access to the witness Bruder then pressure him to change his statement. To get Bruder to change his evidence then this would be used to discredit the witness Martin and put the 3:15pm cut off point back on track.

So when the inquest of Kevin resumed on 4th May 1990 the coroner had decided not to call the two witnesses Bruder and Martin. He denied the rights to Kevin's mother to learn of the last moments of her son's life. The coroner instead called the Inspector Sawers to "read out" Bruder's changed statement, and by reading out someone else's statement, he was able to add or omit words of his choosing, without fear of being cross-examined.

Inspector Sawers was able to commit perjury with impunity. Evidence of video footage was suppressed which was of an ambulance driving passed Bruder at the disaster scene when attending to Kevin, the video time sequence showed 15:36:22. As stated this was suppressed to allow Inspector Sawers to tell the court that only two ambulances had arrives at the scene (1) 15:15 and (2) 15:20. This suggested Mr. Bruder was mistaken about an ambulance at 3:37pm.

Sawers had actually shown a third ambulance to its driver Mr. Edwards some months before (21st October 1989) so he knew full well that there was a third ambulance at 15:36:22 but chose to keep quiet thus allowing the coroner to tell the jury "if Mr. Bruder was wrong about the ambulance then he is wrong about the pulse." Clearly the jury was misled because evidence now available shows the ambulance after the TV Cook report found the video footage in 1995, pity it was not found earlier for the inquests (police had suppressed it because it showed the time 15:36:22 which supported Bruder).

In the TV drama "Hillsborough" it portrayed Dr. Slater telephoning the witness Bruder to change his statement. This resulted in Dr. Slater complaining to the broadcasting commission and emphasized that he merely called the witness to arrange meeting in Sheffield. However, because of the release of documents appertaining to Hillsborough and the inquest via the Freedom of Information Act 2000, there is now evidence which shows that Dr. Slater had pressed the witness Bruder on medical issues whilst in the process of Inspector Sawers presence with Mr. Bruder - it all added to psychological pressure to Mr. Bruder so he would change his statement. There have never been any discussion of a meeting in Sheffield at all. Dr. Slater had lied just as he did at Kevin's inquest hearing.

As for the coroner it is now proven that he was party to this conspiracy and was clearly not impartial. Evidence now available shows that he had aided and abetted a criminal offence to have Dr. Slater a witness himself to challenge another witness' (Bruder) evidence so to fit in with his own version, then use his office as well as Inspector Sawers' in this enterprise. All to protect his 3:15pm cut off idea.

Not to call crucial witnesses like PC Bruder, WPC Martin, and ambulance-man Mr. Edwards, meant that Kevin William's inquest was empty. A public enquiry should investigate what went on more so, because further evidence shows that a senior officer who led West Midlands Police inquest team was Detective Superintendent Stanley Beechley, who was at that time under a criminal investigation conducted by West Yorkshire Police. Because of this Beechley's own chief constable Geoffrey Dear had place Beechley onto non-operational duties. The question is how this corrupt office became senior over the inquest team and become the coroner's right hand man. In 2004 the chief constable stated that "had he known Supt. Beechley was on Hillsborough, he would have taken him off." This being too late, the damage had been done.

Following the disaster there was an inquiry held by Mr. Justice Taylor who found that the South Yorkshire Police were at fault. In his decision he mentioned how people had meet their death and why:
(1) Police opening of Gate 'C' to allow thousands of people
to rush in, without control of officers, causing crushing
at 3:06.
(2) Failure of police to administer the major disaster plan
until 3:55.
(3) Police cordon preventing some 40 ambulances from
reaching the disaster scene with oxygen and expert
medical help. People who dies could have lived.
(4) No safety certificate rendering the ground unsafe.
(5) Crush barriers corroded, some stuffed with old
newspapers which later collapsed.
(6) Faulty turnstiles letting in more people to over capacity.

The inquest was a means of covering up the police failures The Taylor report was ignored by the coroner who not once mentioned and of the issues raised above (1 - 6).

The coroner was after an "accidental death' verdict and not an unlawful killing' one - and so ensuring that the jury was not given the facts as to how or why people had met their deaths. He introduced the 3:15pm cut off point and would not hear any evidence following 3:15pm. That's why he was able to hide from the jury the police cordon preventing medical help, the failure to implement the major disaster plan, the opening of gate 'C,' etc - all of this would constitute unlawful killing.

The coroner's role in using his officers as a means of manipulating witnesses to change statements, his association with the corrupt West Midlands Supt. Beechley (a man under criminal investigation at the time), his fraudulent concealment of evidence, condoning perjury to mislead the jury, irregularities of the inquest, suppression of evidence, etc. It was disgrace and an insult to the families who where at that time still in trauma and losing their loved ones.

Anne Williams fights on from the parlour of her own home and has taken her case to Europe and waits to find out whether it is admissible or not. She thanks everyone for all the support. He case in Europe is now it its second year.

You'll Never Walk Alone... ...Hope for Hillsborough

http://www.hopeforhillsborough.org/overview_-_kevin.html
 
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=47298.msg1417007#msg1417007 date=1319567891]
I tried lads, but I'm a Paddy living in the US for 20 years now... They don't want my signature.
[/quote]

Fuckin Irish Americans, useless ye are
 
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=47298.msg1417007#msg1417007 date=1319567891]
I tried lads, but I'm a Paddy living in the US for 20 years now... They don't want my signature.
[/quote]

Anyone not able to sign it due to address, just use this...

Anfield Road
Liverpool
Merseyside
L4 OTH


Just say you're a UK resident and then add that address and postcode.
 
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=47298.msg1417009#msg1417009 date=1319567970]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=47298.msg1417007#msg1417007 date=1319567891]
I tried lads, but I'm a Paddy living in the US for 20 years now... They don't want my signature.
[/quote]

Fuckin Irish Americans, useless ye are
[/quote]

So I'm told, mate.
 
If you say you area UK citizen, you can put down an address abroad. I did & got a confirmation email....
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47298.msg1416999#msg1416999 date=1319567162]
What does Kevin's mother believe he died from ?
[/quote]
That doesnt read too well mate.
 
[quote author=Spionkop69 link=topic=47298.msg1417030#msg1417030 date=1319572402]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47298.msg1416999#msg1416999 date=1319567162]
What does Kevin's mother believe he died from ?
[/quote]
That doesnt read too well mate.
[/quote]I'm new here so didn't want to say it, but glad someone did.
 
Ross has probably just slipped into lawyer mode I'm quite sure he doesn't mean it how it may read.
 
Pretty much, I didn't know anything about this particular case - and thought something other than what we already know to have happened at Hillsborough was the cause - Hence the question.

If the inquest verdict came back as an unlawful killing it would potentially open the way for criminal charges to be brought against those calling the shots on the day. And for that reason I wouldn't be hopeful of it ever being treated as such. The only category it could really fall under would be gross negligence manslaughter. Tricky to establish, and the UK test is as follows apparently:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#gross

The test involves the following stages:

a) the existence of a duty of care to the deceased;
b) a breach of that duty of care which;
c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and
d) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.

A isn't a problem, B is probably easily surmountable, C is where the inquest gives you a problem - and if you've got two potential causes of death you've got causation issues (hard to know without seeing the medical evidence at the inquest) and D) is where the courts will present a problem given previous cases involving Hillsborough resulted in what's most nicely referred to as "judicial creativity"

Inquests aren't as transparent or inquisitive as they should be here, and they don't appear to have been in the UK at that time either.
 
Could someone explain the "British citizen or UK resident? Address" bit ?

Do I click "yes" for British Citizen and then move on without entering my adress ?

*confused*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom