Hillsborough - Judgement Day
- Thread starter 6TimesaRed
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
A few years back. Still back then I didn't see this day comming!!
Yes. Well said Macca.
That's a great read.
The details from the day never get easier to face. But this is a proper piece of journalistic commentary.
David Conn's coverage has been unfailingly brilliant.
I'm quite sure that the Jury members, having in mind that witness statements had been altered, would have seen that as attempting to cover up command errors resulting in disaster.
It's one thing to admit an operational error, it's quite another to make decisions which get people killed and then try to cover it up.
It's has everything to do with unlawful killing because criminality took place.
Great day
Not legally it doesn't, and any attempt to bring it into the argument in that way would have been disallowed by the coroner. It certainly looks like part of an overall pattern, and if the officers in question are prosecuted for perjury in due course that may well be part of the prosecution's case now that the jury has found unlawful killing, but it would not have been relevant or admissible in trying to persuade the jury to reach that verdict in the first place.
Last edited:
But for the FA's incompetence and rigidity, there would have been no tragedy. The match would not have been scheduled for Hillsborough in the first place or, at the very least, they'd have agreed to move it when we asked them to, and would have accepted Utd's offer to stage it at Old Trafford. Duckenfield and the S.Yorks.force have a lot to answer for, but I keep asking myself the question that's been in my mind almost from day one: to what extent is it the fault of the police that they failed to do a job which was probably impossible by its very nature?
Relevante question. But "by straight ignorance" is definately not the answer. And I am pretty sure the police could and should have stopped the arrangement if safety of People were at risk. Hopefully they are above FA in those issues?
The difficulty with that is that, although unlawful killing's been recorded as the cause of death, no-one's been personally convicted of criminal behaviour in connection with it. If and when they are, then yes, they'll have to be sentenced to some form of punishment, but you can't punish someone unless they've been properly tried and found guilty.
It didn't need to be allowed in court JJ it was common knowledge. The process doesn't trump reality or prior knowledge.
absolutely. basically i suppose what im asking is will there be such a hearing in the future.
Yes, that's true, and at least one of the police commanders on the day has been quoted as saying he wished he had at least got the start of the match delayed, which might have been enough. My point is that none of this should have mattered, because the match should never have been played there.
Sorry but that's flat wrong. The jury would have been expressly required to disregard any prior knowledge they might have had and reach a verdict solely on the evidence presented in court.
My emotions are all over the place with todays news. God knows those people who were more closely affected feel. Total vindication now though. The truth finally is out. When the cunts in power thought they could cover this up and deflect the blame they picked on the wrong people. Everyone involved in getting to this point in time should be immensely proud of themselves but you simply cant help tempering any positive feelings with the fact not only could the whole disaster could have been avoided but certainly the last 27 years could have been avoided if people were brave enough to admit they fucked up rather than try and take the lowlife cowards way out and attempt to turn the blame on those affected.
I believe the CPS are now looking into it to see if they will bring charges. As the key quesiton on this issue was :
6. Unlawful killing: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? To answer 'yes' to this question, the jurors must be sure of the following:
You have to assume that Mr Duckenfield is feeling a little bit nervous at this stage.
6. Unlawful killing: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? To answer 'yes' to this question, the jurors must be sure of the following:
- Firstly, that Ch Supt David Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 who died
- Secondly, that he was in breach of that duty of care
- Thirdly, that the breach of Mr Duckenfield's duty of care caused the deaths
- Finally, the jury must be sure that the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence."
You have to assume that Mr Duckenfield is feeling a little bit nervous at this stage.
Indeed. Ditto anyone shown to have had a hand in the various decisions to alter the evidence, which may well amount to perjury.
No the coroner just determines cause of death.
Technically though, its now possible that Duckenfield and or others could face charges provided the correct offence was in place at the time - some sort of negligence based manslaughter charge.
Someone better up on English criminal law could clear that up.
Quite.
I'm pleased, but this neither feels like a victory, nor like justice. I chose my words carefully earlier. Justification rather than justice, & vindication rather than victory.
There'll now be a separate criminal investigation about it and prosecutors will meet later this year to decide whether to proceed with charges.
Just heard the news regarding the outcome here in Thailand. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families. I've spoken a few times here how I could easily have been one of them and I know there are people on here that were actually there on that terrible day. My thoughts are with you all. JFT96
- Status
