Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other high profile cases => Topic started by: petey on January 15, 2019, 02:25:PM
-
The trials of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell finally started at Preston Crown Court today.
Please everyone be mindful NOT to post anything too emotive / judgemental / libellous whilst the trials are ongoing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46878778
JFT96
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47555666
Sadly for many, somewhat predictable that David Duckenfield chooses not to testify.
JFT96
-
Mackrell - GUILTY
Duckenfield - no verdict
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47800960
JFT96
-
Mackrell - GUILTY
Duckenfield - no verdict
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47800960
JFT96
It looks like a retrial Petey.
-
I have completely mixed feelings to be honest and I accept my opinions maybe somewhat influenced by my proximity to the Hillsborough families and support of Liverpool FC.
On a separate note, I start my PhD thesis in September covering critical victimology and the victimhood narrative, post Hillsborough. (I write as a legal academic, not a LFC fan (hopefully))
Firstly, after 30 years, following the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report and 2nd inquests, which completely exonerated the LFC fans, whilst placing the blame clearly at the doorstep of the police, it seems hard to believe that the sole person to be found CRIMINALLY guilty of an offence relating to the Hillsborough Disaster is an ex SWFC safety officer, who now faces the maximum sentence of an unlimited fine.
Duckenfield has a case to answer. It has strongly been rumoured that the jury weighting was 9-3 in favour of guilt but we will never know this and the weighting will never be released publicly.
On the one hand, even after 30 years, the families of the victims still don’t have closure. Why should they not have the right to a retrial when Duckenfiehd clearly still has a case to answer and many people (including people within the legal profession) believe him guilty. BUT on the other hand, here is a 74 year old man, who despite what some people say, did his best on the day. His efforts fell well short of the required standard, but were part of much wider failings on behalf of the police, stadium, ambulance services, FA, government.....
A retrial will not bring back the 96. It may bring closure. But what if again there us a hung jury or even if Duckenfield is found not guilty. Imagine the emotional harm this would cause the families, many of whom are in old age now.
Ultimately, there are no winners and never will be. Whilst Duckenfield still has a case to answer, some families passionately support a retrial, whilst others want to get on with their lives. What happened at Hillsborough will always be on Duckenfield’s conscience but sadly moving forwards nothing can bring back the 96 and nothing can bring closure to everybody.
JFT96
-
I have completely mixed feelings to be honest and I accept my opinions maybe somewhat influenced by my proximity to the Hillsborough families and support of Liverpool FC.
On a separate note, I start my PhD thesis in September covering critical victimology and the victimhood narrative, post Hillsborough. (I write as a legal academic, not a LFC fan (hopefully))
Firstly, after 30 years, following the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report and 2nd inquests, which completely exonerated the LFC fans, whilst placing the blame clearly at the doorstep of the police, it seems hard to believe that the sole person to be found CRIMINALLY guilty of an offence relating to the Hillsborough Disaster is an ex SWFC safety officer, who now faces the maximum sentence of an unlimited fine.
Duckenfield has a case to answer. It has strongly been rumoured that the jury weighting was 9-3 in favour of guilt but we will never know this and the weighting will never be released publicly.
On the one hand, even after 30 years, the families of the victims still don’t have closure. Why should they not have the right to a retrial when Duckenfiehd clearly still has a case to answer and many people (including people within the legal profession) believe him guilty. BUT on the other hand, here is a 74 year old man, who despite what some people say, did his best on the day. His efforts fell well short of the required standard, but were part of much wider failings on behalf of the police, stadium, ambulance services, FA, government.....
A retrial will not bring back the 96. It may bring closure. But what if again there us a hung jury or even if Duckenfield is found not guilty. Imagine the emotional harm this would cause the families, many of whom are in old age now.
Ultimately, there are no winners and never will be. Whilst Duckenfield still has a case to answer, some families passionately support a retrial, whilst others want to get on with their lives. What happened at Hillsborough will always be on Duckenfield’s conscience but sadly moving forwards nothing can bring back the 96 and nothing can bring closure to everybody.
JFT96
I do agree with you petey. Understandably there are mixed enotions, particularly amongst the bereaved families and friends and it is certainly not for me to judge. a massive tragedy for all involved, for many it was more a search for the truth and recognition rather than a blame gane. Others need retrubution, it depends what helps their personal pain imo.
Absolute respect for the struggle for justice, driven by love for those they lost.
JF/96
-
I have completely mixed feelings to be honest and I accept my opinions maybe somewhat influenced by my proximity to the Hillsborough families and support of Liverpool FC.
On a separate note, I start my PhD thesis in September covering critical victimology and the victimhood narrative, post Hillsborough. (I write as a legal academic, not a LFC fan (hopefully))
Firstly, after 30 years, following the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report and 2nd inquests, which completely exonerated the LFC fans, whilst placing the blame clearly at the doorstep of the police, it seems hard to believe that the sole person to be found CRIMINALLY guilty of an offence relating to the Hillsborough Disaster is an ex SWFC safety officer, who now faces the maximum sentence of an unlimited fine.
Duckenfield has a case to answer. It has strongly been rumoured that the jury weighting was 9-3 in favour of guilt but we will never know this and the weighting will never be released publicly.
On the one hand, even after 30 years, the families of the victims still don’t have closure. Why should they not have the right to a retrial when Duckenfiehd clearly still has a case to answer and many people (including people within the legal profession) believe him guilty. BUT on the other hand, here is a 74 year old man, who despite what some people say, did his best on the day. His efforts fell well short of the required standard, but were part of much wider failings on behalf of the police, stadium, ambulance services, FA, government.....
A retrial will not bring back the 96. It may bring closure. But what if again there us a hung jury or even if Duckenfield is found not guilty. Imagine the emotional harm this would cause the families, many of whom are in old age now.
Ultimately, there are no winners and never will be. Whilst Duckenfield still has a case to answer, some families passionately support a retrial, whilst others want to get on with their lives. What happened at Hillsborough will always be on Duckenfield’s conscience but sadly moving forwards nothing can bring back the 96 and nothing can bring closure to everybody.
JFT96
I'm surprised that you say this Petey. I would have thought his actions and non-actions on the day were a disgrace. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31928476
-
I'm surprised that you say this Petey. I would have thought his actions and non-actions on the day were a disgrace. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31928476
Duckenfields answers at the inquests were carefully crafted by lawyers and he doesn’t admit any criminal liability. That said, the judge at the trial told the jury to totally disregard anything said at the inquests.
Ultimately IN MY OPINION Duckenfield was not the right person to have been in charge of the policing operation on the day. He lacked the experience or knowledge of what to do when problems arose.
I 100% support the views of the Hillsborough families with regards David Duckenfield. However, having worked and studied in the legal world for over 20 years, whether his actions on the day are enough to make him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a criminal offence, is a whole different matter.
My opinions based on all the material I have read and studied and the evidence I have viewed, may be different to a jury who sat through all the evidence raised during a 10 week trial.
As I’ve said before, what happened at Hillsborough will ALWAYS remain on Duckenfields conscience regardless of whether he is convicted at any future trial.
JFT96
-
They kept the fact that police witness statements were altered, for the purpose of trying to pin the responsibility for the disaster on drunken Liverpool supporters...
In many instances, statements made by police officers were edited, by other police officers, without the named witnesses knowing what had been done to their witness statements, rendering such witness statements forgeries - Since, the named police witness statements had not been made of their own free will, (if tended into evidence), hence why they did not rely upon these doctored witness statements at the recent trial..
-
Duckenfield to face retrial.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-48756722
JFT96
-
Duckenfield to face retrial.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-48756722
JFT96
David Duckenfield found not guilty today by a jury.
But - after his first trial failed to reach a verdict - a jury at a retrial found him not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter today.
-
Not guilty after judge allowed a majority decision at 2pm today.
I went to the trial at Preston Crown Court on a number of days. As a Liverpool fan this may sound controversial, but legally speaking I think that the decision was probably correct.
So so important that people remember that even though Duckenfield was held criminally not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, the 96 victims were still unlawfully killed and Liverpool supporters played no role whatsoever in their deaths. The verdict today does not change this in any way.
JFT96
-
Not guilty after judge allowed a majority decision at 2pm today.
I went to the trial at Preston Crown Court on a number of days. As a Liverpool fan this may sound controversial, but legally speaking I think that the decision was probably correct.
So so important that people remember that even though Duckenfield was held criminally not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, the 96 victims were still unlawfully killed and Liverpool supporters played no role whatsoever in their deaths. The verdict today does not change this in any way.
JFT96
Well said Petey, so so sad
-
Well said Petey, so so sad
Tell me about it.
I’m writing my PhD thesis at the moment looking at holding organisations to account in light of the Hillsborough disaster.
JFT96
-
Not guilty after judge allowed a majority decision at 2pm today.
I went to the trial at Preston Crown Court on a number of days. As a Liverpool fan this may sound controversial, but legally speaking I think that the decision was probably correct.
So so important that people remember that even though Duckenfield was held criminally not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, the 96 victims were still unlawfully killed and Liverpool supporters played no role whatsoever in their deaths. The verdict today does not change this in any way.
JFT96
I know the groundsman at the time of the tragedy, he was one of the top groundsmen in the country at the time, he had to finish after, he couldn’t face going down the tunnel again and still has flash backs.
-
3 trials, 2 inquests, numerous articles, books.
Police, Liverpool fans, FA, SWFC, Sheffield city council, south Yorkshire Police ambulance, Duckenfield, Murray, Bettison all blamed and some accepted blame to a certain extent.
Yet only ONE person bears any criminal responsibility. The SWFC safety officer, Graham Mackrell.
JFT96
-
Not guilty after judge allowed a majority decision at 2pm today.
I went to the trial at Preston Crown Court on a number of days. As a Liverpool fan this may sound controversial, but legally speaking I think that the decision was probably correct.
So so important that people remember that even though Duckenfield was held criminally not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, the 96 victims were still unlawfully killed and Liverpool supporters played no role whatsoever in their deaths. The verdict today does not change this in any way.
JFT96
I don't think you can hold anyone accountable, it was an accident. Lessons were learned and legislation was passed to prevent it happening again.
-
I don't think you can hold anyone accountable, it was an accident. Lessons were learned and legislation was passed to prevent it happening again.
It was an accident?!
I assume you didn’t follow the second inquest or the recent trial of David Duckenfield?? (Where it was categorically held NOT to be a blameless accident)
Unlawful killing does not equate to accident!
If that is your genuine viewpoint then you are very naive to the events of the day.
JFT96
-
I don't think you can hold anyone accountable, it was an accident. Lessons were learned and legislation was passed to prevent it happening again.
Have to agree with you David. What happened that day was horrendous, Dave Barber head Groundsman has his own account of the tragedy, it still haunts him to this day. He’s one of the nicest blokes I’ve ever had the privilege meeting and working with. He stayed for a while after but had to leave, he couldn’t go down the tunnel or go in the gym they used for a morgue.
-
Have to agree with you David. What happened that day was horrendous, Dave Barber head Groundsman has his own account of the tragedy, it still haunts him to this day. He’s one of the nicest blokes I’ve ever had the privilege meeting and working with. He stayed for a while after but had to leave, he couldn’t go down the tunnel or go in the gym they used for a morgue.
Not holding anybody CRIMINALLY accountable does NOT mean it was an accident. Numerous factors and people were to blame.
The 96 were UNLAWFUL KILLED
JFT96
-
Whose brainwave idea was it to erect fences around the pitch and why was this person not held accountable after the tragedy? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767
-
Whose brainwave idea was it to erect fences around the pitch and why was this person not held accountable after the tragedy? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767
I’ll let you know when I’ve finished my PhD
-
Not holding anybody CRIMINALLY accountable does NOT mean it was an accident. Numerous factors and people were to blame.
The 96 were UNLAWFUL KILLED
JFT96
Im not disputing that, you asked me to please tell, but I’m afraid you wouldn’t like my version and you probably wouldn’t want other people’s version of events, who were there. I’m not in a slanging match. There were lots to blame right from the FA, I was a football fan in that era, I went to matches, I stood in crowds pushing and shoving trying to get into grounds, I stood with crowds who had been on the booze since opening time and rushing to get into the ground at the very last minute, I’ve been in the Koop when the idiots at the back all pushed forward sending every kid at the front into the walls at the bottom, not giving a shit about the poor kids and the police having to deal with lines of hooligans hurling abuse. If you want my opinion I will give it, but if you don’t, then don’t ask for it.
-
I’ll let you know when I’ve finished my PhD
Are you writing your phD solely as a Liverpool fan?
-
Are you writing your phD solely as a Liverpool fan?
I’m writing it as a legal academic
-
Whose brainwave idea was it to erect fences around the pitch and why was this person not held accountable after the tragedy? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767
If you have ever been on the receiving end or witnessed a pitch invasion by booze fuelled fans, you would have welcomed the fences. Plenty of football fans only attended football matches for one thing, trouble, not interested in watching football one bit, not one football club didn’t have this problem.
-
Whose brainwave idea was it to erect fences around the pitch and why was this person not held accountable after the tragedy? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767
Its very easy to point out these things AFTER the events unfold.
The Titanic was considered an unsinkable vessel and the safest ship in the world. Now that its sunk and we know how it sank - Lets see. Why were the bilge and ballast pumps not designed to work in unison to help expel the incoming water? Why were the watertight bulkheads not sealed into compartments? Why was there only a double bottom and not a double hull installed also? Why was there no searchlights on the bow?
All obvious after, but not so much before.
-
If you have ever been on the receiving end or witnessed a pitch invasion by booze fuelled fans, you would have welcomed the fences. Plenty of football fans only attended football matches for one thing, trouble, not interested in watching football one bit, not one football club didn’t have this problem.
I never welcomed the fences. They reminded me of an electric fence which had been installed in the Ribble Valley many years ago by a farmer to pen in his livestock and that's possibly only what fences are for: animals not people.
-
I’m writing it as a legal academic
Ok, I have to agree the lies told wasn’t necessary and I do think if they had told the truth from the start it would have been less painful for the families. I do think, however DD would have been advised what to say and what script to follow.
-
Its very easy to point out these things AFTER the events unfold.
The Titanic was considered an unsinkable vessel and the safest ship in the world. Now that its sunk and we know how it sank - Lets see. Why were the bilge and ballast pumps not designed to work in unison to help expel the incoming water? Why were the watertight bulkheads not sealed into compartments? Why was there only a double bottle and not a double hull installed also? Why was there no searchlights on the bow?
All obvious after, but not so much before.
Nobody else has pointed it out though. Maybe I'll have to wait until the completion of Petey's PhD.
-
Nobody else has pointed it out though. Maybe I'll have to wait until the completion of Petey's PhD.
Since they are no longer used, obviously someone did point it out.
-
Since they are no longer used, obviously someone did point it out.
I didn't need hindsight. Let's also not forget the Taylor report blamed South Yorkshire Police failings and the latter organization has dragged its feet for 30 years when it was the main cause of the disaster.
-
Ok, I have to agree the lies told wasn’t necessary and I do think if they had told the truth from the start it would have been less painful for the families. I do think, however DD would have been advised what to say and what script to follow.
Completely. He admitted blame and culpability at the inquests but his statement was carefully crafted by lawyers meaning he admitted nothing criminally.
-
Not holding anybody CRIMINALLY accountable does NOT mean it was an accident. Numerous factors and people were to blame.
The 96 were UNLAWFUL KILLED
JFT96
Unlawfully killed, that does not equate to being illegally killed. Unlawful means its neither authorised by law or forbidden by law either.
-
Unlawfully killed, that does not equate to being illegally killed. Unlawful means its neither authorised by law or forbidden by law either.
'KILLED' means that a person did not die by natural causes, or disease. They were 'killed' by someone, or something else...
-
CPS are to apply for a retrial of Duckinfield..
-
CPS are to apply for a retrial of Duckinfield..
Simply not true. They cannot do so
JFT96
-
Simply not true. They cannot do so
JFT96
Definitely true, hearing scheduled for June next year according to sky news report...
Also, there are two or three more prosecutions due to be tried in weeks involving offences of perverting the course of justice in the immediate aftermath of Hillsborough, involving the altering and tampering of official police records, in particular the altering of 164 police officers witness statements by other police officers. I have personal knowledge of the extent of this kind of dishonesty and corruption, since I personally was a victim of the very same tactics, at the hands of South Yorkshire police between January 1986 - June 1987 where police officers witness statement contents were altered and in many cases the officers in whose name the witness statements had been made, did not know the identity of some other officer, or officers, or civilian employees, who had made the alterations in their witness statements in order to bolster up usable evidence to put the blame somewhere else. In1990, Greater Manchester police carried out an investigation into such matters, and arrested the offending police officers involved in the perverting of justice in my own cases. This led to a further discovery that police officers whose witness statements had been altered by an 'unknown' other, managed to get access to additional police issue pocketbooks, and to re-write their notes so that it appeared that officers had altered the contents of their own witness statements by reliance upon the fact that they could produce an official police pocketbook containing the added version which someone else was responsible for creating, as though the named police officer in question had made a unique handwritten notes in his, or her own pocketbook. This scam was exposed by the Greater Manchester police investigation because the pocketbooks containing the false evidence all had embossed serial numbers on the front cover of them, and there was a system in place named 'A Pocketbook Issuing Register Document' which contained all the details of every pocketbook by reference to its serial number, who it was issued to, by whom it was issued by, on a specific date. Not surprisingly, the original pocketbook Issuing Registers went missing until after the Hillsboro' tragedy in April 1989, and only then was a copy of those records found by a civilian cleaner in a filing cabinet in the basement of South Yorkshire Police Headquarters, at snig hill in Sheffield. Upon examination of the contents of these pocketbook issuing registers, it was discovered that pocketbook contents containing the 'altered' information in police witness statements, had been 'entries' recorded in many pocketbooks, dated, prior to the date of the issuing of that particular pocketbook to a named police officer. These registers contained the signatures of the issuing police officer, and the receiving officer. In other words despite some police officers being allowed to refer to the contents of these 'dodgy' pocketbook entries in criminal proceedings, on the pretense that the notes being relied upon had been recorded in that particular pocketbook on the date of an alleged offence, or event, it soon became apparent to Greater Manchester police that because certain pocketbooks had not been issued (against dated signatures) it was impossible for a particular officer to have made an entry into his / her picketbook, on any date previous to the occasion that the pocketbook which contained the 'dodgy' evidence had even been issued to an officer. These astonishing facts, when coupled with the fact that the contents of a police officers witness statement had been altered by somebody else, the identity of which or whom was kept a closely guarded secret, but nevertheless proved and established that police officers did not, and do not make, or add, or alter the contents of witness statements made in their name, and therefore, they had not made the witness statement relied upon in criminal proceeding or that it was a witness statement they had made of their own free will..
Anyway, I have copies of all the South Yorkshire police pocketbook Issuing Registers, going back to 1985, onwards, and so the 164 police officers witness statements which were tampered with in the Hillsboro' tragedy (soon after April 15th 1989) will contain the identity of all of those 164 police officers who's statements had been dishonestly altered and changed by other members of South Yorkshire Police..
I shall be posting copies of these pocketbook issuing registers covering 1985 to 1990, in case, the contents may help the prosecution of these other police officers in the Hillsboro' crush tragedy, and I do so in 'the public interest'..
-
They'll all cover each other's backs whatever the outcome !!
-
Definitely true, hearing scheduled for June next year according to sky news report...
Also, there are two or three more prosecutions due to be tried in weeks involving offences of perverting the course of justice in the immediate aftermath of Hillsborough, involving the altering and tampering of official police records, in particular the altering of 164 police officers witness statements by other police officers. I have personal knowledge of the extent of this kind of dishonesty and corruption, since I personally was a victim of the very same tactics, at the hands of South Yorkshire police between January 1986 - June 1987 where police officers witness statement contents were altered and in many cases the officers in whose name the witness statements had been made, did not know the identity of some other officer, or officers, or civilian employees, who had made the alterations in their witness statements in order to bolster up usable evidence to put the blame somewhere else. In1990, Greater Manchester police carried out an investigation into such matters, and arrested the offending police officers involved in the perverting of justice in my own cases. This led to a further discovery that police officers whose witness statements had been altered by an 'unknown' other, managed to get access to additional police issue pocketbooks, and to re-write their notes so that it appeared that officers had altered the contents of their own witness statements by reliance upon the fact that they could produce an official police pocketbook containing the added version which someone else was responsible for creating, as though the named police officer in question had made a unique handwritten notes in his, or her own pocketbook. This scam was exposed by the Greater Manchester police investigation because the pocketbooks containing the false evidence all had embossed serial numbers on the front cover of them, and there was a system in place named 'A Pocketbook Issuing Register Document' which contained all the details of every pocketbook by reference to its serial number, who it was issued to, by whom it was issued by, on a specific date. Not surprisingly, the original pocketbook Issuing Registers went missing until after the Hillsboro' tragedy in April 1989, and only then was a copy of those records found by a civilian cleaner in a filing cabinet in the basement of South Yorkshire Police Headquarters, at snig hill in Sheffield. Upon examination of the contents of these pocketbook issuing registers, it was discovered that pocketbook contents containing the 'altered' information in police witness statements, had been 'entries' recorded in many pocketbooks, dated, prior to the date of the issuing of that particular pocketbook to a named police officer. These registers contained the signatures of the issuing police officer, and the receiving officer. In other words despite some police officers being allowed to refer to the contents of these 'dodgy' pocketbook entries in criminal proceedings, on the pretense that the notes being relied upon had been recorded in that particular pocketbook on the date of an alleged offence, or event, it soon became apparent to Greater Manchester police that because certain pocketbooks had not been issued (against dated signatures) it was impossible for a particular officer to have made an entry into his / her picketbook, on any date previous to the occasion that the pocketbook which contained the 'dodgy' evidence had even been issued to an officer. These astonishing facts, when coupled with the fact that the contents of a police officers witness statement had been altered by somebody else, the identity of which or whom was kept a closely guarded secret, but nevertheless proved and established that police officers did not, and do not make, or add, or alter the contents of witness statements made in their name, and therefore, they had not made the witness statement relied upon in criminal proceeding or that it was a witness statement they had made of their own free will..
Anyway, I have copies of all the South Yorkshire police pocketbook Issuing Registers, going back to 1985, onwards, and so the 164 police officers witness statements which were tampered with in the Hillsboro' tragedy (soon after April 15th 1989) will contain the identity of all of those 164 police officers who's statements had been dishonestly altered and changed by other members of South Yorkshire Police..
I shall be posting copies of these pocketbook issuing registers covering 1985 to 1990, in case, the contents may help the prosecution of these other police officers in the Hillsboro' crush tragedy, and I do so in 'the public interest'..
There is no retrial for Duckenfield and he will now face no further action.
Retired SY police officers Donald Denton, Alan Foster and the force’s solicitor at the time Peter Metcalf will be tried for charges relating to perverting the course of justice next June.
JFT96
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/18/hillsborough-police-face-trial-accused-of-perverting-course-of-justice
32 years after the disaster, still further criminal trials are due to start tomorrow.
No result can take away the pain and suffering that so many people go through on a daily basis.
JFT96
-
They were charged in 2017 and the case has been adjourned several times. I found a Liverpool Echo article from early 2020 that quotes lengthy extracts from Mr Justice William Davis's decision to allow an adjournment, and this includes the following comment from that judge:
The trial is the culmination of many years of campaigning by groups representing the families of those who died. In that context any further delay should be avoided if at all possible.
Source: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/trial-over-aftermath-hillsborough-tragedy-17826788
Just that one comment alone shakes my confidence in the impartiality of the whole proceedings. A criminal prosecution should be the culmination of a process of investigation and gathering evidence, not 'campaigning'. The criminal justice system should not be bent to the agendas of campaigning groups.
I have to say, I have always found it very difficult to believe that Liverpool supporters were not a factor in what happened that day, and even the so-called Independent Panel heard plenty of evidence in the form of statements from witnesses who told them that supporters behaved badly. Yet this evidence was effectively ignored and the 'Independent' Panel pretentiously absolved supporters of blame. In truth, that Panel was not independent at all.
Something is not right about this whole business. Maybe the police told lies, and if so, that's wrong and any police officer who attempted to steer an accident investigation off-course, or even pervert the course of justice, must be punished. Certainly the police did not help themselves in the way they carried on. But I agree with the comments of Real Justice and David on this thread. David is correct: this was a terrible accident. Accidents have causes, and it is right that this was investigated and lessons learned.
I think Hillsborough was a complex incident in which several factors came together:
(i). Stadium design.
(ii). Poor upkeep of the stadium.
(iii). Bad behaviour on the part of Liverpool supporters - not all, but at the same time, it's not clear what proportion caused the problems.
(iv). Crowd dynamics (i.e. the constructive/non-intentional results/ramifications of normal supporter behaviour in a poorly-/inadequately-designed/maintained stadium).
(v). Poor or inadequate planning on the part of the police.
(vi). An inexperienced match commander faced with the above factors, who was then made a scapegoat.
These factors were probably present to different degrees at matches up and down the country, week-in, week-out, and a disaster somewhere in England was inevitable. It just happened to be Hillsborough, but is it a coincidence that the supporters involved were from the same club that brought us the Heysel disaster? I'm not sure, but it's a common factor. I've always taken a slight dislike to the club and its supporters, not because of their role in two disasters, but because of the way they go on about both. I really dislike the sickly and saccharine way they over-exaggerate their collective sense of culpability for the earlier disaster, when they do acknowledge it, while completely refuting all culpability in the later disaster, claiming blanket 'victimhood' for Hillsborough and demanding 'justice', as if there was some evil moral agency at work. I would prefer to just have the truth, and I think it would have done some good if there had been some sort of acknowledgement that supporters were a factor in the latter disaster, just as they were in the earlier. Those who demand the truth should be truthful themselves.
The truth is normally somewhere in the middle. It cannot be that Liverpool must bear a Cross for Heysel while being absolved of all blame for Hillsborough. The conduct of Liverpool supporters at Heysel was inexcusable and unforgivable; they damaged the English game and perceptions of English working class people, both at home and abroad. At the same time, it was a minority of their supporters as a whole and the behaviour was not reflective of most of them; and it's probable that the Italians had some culpability. Also, I am told - I'm not sure if this is true - that Liverpool F.C. officially complained to UEFA about the safety of the Heysel stadium prior to that match. In any event, the stadium was definitely in a poor state.
In the case of Hillsborough, perhaps one reason that the 'fans as cause' factor has been under-examined, if examined seriously at all, is that the sport underwent a culture change during the 1990s anyway that neutralised and took away a lot of the supporter behaviour and crowd dynamics that contributed to Hillsborough. The point was thus rendered null for practical purposes. Lord Taylor whitewashed the issue in his contemporaneous report, partly because blaming supporters is a moral 'hot potato', but possibly also because the government of the time wanted a stick with which to beat South Yorkshire Police and/or possibly because Hillsborough was viewed as an opportunity to reign in football culture and neutralise its harsher elements by re-designing the experience of watching games. This in turn led to opportunities to exploit football commercially and it became a 'middle-class' game during the 1990s. Whereas in the past a middle-class west Londoner might follow Wasps or Saracens and watch out for the Barbarians, he now followed Fulham or Chelsea.
Hilllsborough was an awful tragedy and my sympathy is with everybody involved or touched by it, regardless of blame. Yet Hillsborough was a pivotal moment in the game that sparked a fundamental process of transformation - some of it for the better, some of it not. Perhaps the changes were inevitable anyway, due to wider social and economic changes, but it wasn't just a stadium disaster, it was an influential agent of change as important as the founding of Sheffield Cricket Club or Notts County, or Alcock's combination game, or Tyzack and Turnball's 'team of all talents', or Archibald Leitch and the Ibrox stadium disaster, or the Bosman ruling.
-
Petey PM'd me very civilly but I'd rather reply here on the thread, as I don't agree with having discussions 'in private' on what is supposed to be an open forum.
I think the Hillsborough disaster was terrible and I have nothing but sympathy for everybody caught up in it, regardless of personal blame and culpability. I think it was one of those 'bad luck' situations where various factors came together and nobody was going to come out of it well. I reserve some sympathy for David Dukenfield because, even if he is a terrible person (I don't know if he is or isn't), isolating the blame for 97 deaths on one or two people is a bit much in such complex circumstances, and smacks of scapegoating. A number of the jury at the Dukenfield trial seem to have taken a similar view.
Unfortunately, I do think the supporters were one of the factors. Not just in the constructive sense of crowd dynamics, but also I think there was bad behaviour on the part of supporters. I do find it hard to believe that the supporters are in the clear and even the [Non-]Independent Panel heard evidence that suggests supporters were culpable. This so-called 'Independent' Panel then proceeded to ignore that evidence.
You can hold all the fancy enquiries you want, and rope in all the egotistical great and good you want, and write as many reports as you want in an attempt to deodorise the supporters, it doesn't change facts and it can't alter the reality of things that are (or should be) self-evident to any adult person; nor can it change the evidence the Panel heard, and it never will. I have been to football matches (mainly Leeds United) and I've been a rugby union spectator. I accept I was not there - thank goodness - and I allow for that, but simple common sense comes into this I'm afraid.
Of course, 'common sense' is a slippery concept and the evidence you have may point to an extraordinary series of events in which supporter culpability was minimal. If you want to send something across, by all means do so. I am open to changing my mind - but I'd rather you post it here on the thread, so everybody can see it.
I would add just a couple more points. I think in view of the Hillsborough disaster and also a few other things (such as the Rotherham scandal), South Yorkshire Police should have been disbanded and its chief officers retired off and/or dismissed - if only as a symbolic gesture. To emphasise, if I'm defending the police, it is not on the basis that I think they're in the clear. I think their conduct in the immediate aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster was jaw-dropping. Even if supporters did behave badly, it was hardly the time to enunciate on it, and the police of all people should know to defer the disclosure of such information until an impartial inquiry can be convened.
I also regret one comment I made above, or rather the way I expressed it. I said that I have always slightly disliked Liverpool F.C. That's not true really. I didn't mean it like that and should have expressed myself better. In fact, I lived in Liverpool for many years as a young man (among other places), to the point that I even ended up with a slight Scouse accent. One of my first serious girlfriends was Scouse. Even today, I still have a slight Scouse lilt to my voice. I don't dislike the club, or by extension, anybody from Liverpool. But I do dislike the mawkish, emotional sensibility that typifies Scousers, and which I think has social, ethnic and religious roots. Scousers are essentially Anglicised Hibernians (or maybe Hibernised Englishmen, in some cases) and Irish Catholicism plays a role in the mindset. (Though I am hardly one to talk, since I am part-Hibernian myself).
That's probably worse and more offensive than what I said before, and we could argue for days over it, but there it is. Like you, I don't really want an argument.
-
I know this is far from an exact analogy but if a Headteacher knew that the assembly hall fit 1000 and on a particular day 500 pupils from another school were also to be accommodated, and these extra pupils were held in an antechamber, but pushing and shoving led to him opening a door to relieve that pressure, but in the process 10 got trampled to death, who is most to blame for the tragedy..
-
I know this is far from an exact analogy but if a Headteacher knew that the assembly hall fit 1000 and on a particular day 500 pupils from another school were also to be accommodated, and these extra pupils were held in an antechamber, but pushing and shoving led to him opening a door to relieve that pressure, but in the process 10 got trampled to death, who is most to blame for the tragedy..
Would it change your analogy if the headmaster was in his first day in the job having never worked in a school before. When he was called upon to take action following the opening of the door he showed no leadership, but instead he left it to the pupils to proceed as they saw fit?
Equally, would it change the analogy if it was revealed that the headmaster thought that the capacity of the hall was actually 1500 anyway, but he hadn’t bothered to check?
The analogy is pretty disrespectful btw, in my opinion.
JFT96
-
Would it change your analogy if the headmaster was in his first day in the job having never worked in a school before. When he was called upon to take action following the opening of the door he showed no leadership, but instead he left it to the pupils to proceed as they saw fit?
Equally, would it change the analogy if it was revealed that the headmaster thought that the capacity of the hall was actually 1500 anyway, but he hadn’t bothered to check?
The analogy is pretty disrespectful btw, in my opinion.
JFT96
It's the person in charge's job to check capacity. Not only that but he had CCTV at his disposal. Why did he not at the very least ring emergency services when it became evident a crisis was looming?
-
I know this is far from an exact analogy but if a Headteacher knew that the assembly hall fit 1000 and on a particular day 500 pupils from another school were also to be accommodated, and these extra pupils were held in an antechamber, but pushing and shoving led to him opening a door to relieve that pressure, but in the process 10 got trampled to death, who is most to blame for the tragedy..
It sounds to me like they'd be plenty of blame to go round.
-
https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/51660/Cops+and+lawyers+altered+witness+statements+after+Hillsborough%2C+court+hears
-
https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/51660/Cops+and+lawyers+altered+witness+statements+after+Hillsborough%2C+court+hears
We do have - still, just about - a formal presumption of innocence and sub judice laws in this country, and that article sails close to the wind in my view due to the way the author fails to abundantly emphasise that these are still just unproven allegations that may or may not be true.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57172900
Tough to take for the families of the 96 victims and everybody who has been affected by Hillsborough. My thoughts are with them today.
The correct decision legally, but hard to take that only 1 person has ever been held criminally liable in any respect, for the 96 deaths, and despite a myriad of apologies, nobody has been held accountable.
JFT96
-
Not sure if this is the end of the line but it seems that justice has not been served. I understand there is a legal technical argument and that is the way the law works.
-
Not sure if this is the end of the line but it seems that justice has not been served. I understand there is a legal technical argument and that is the way the law works.
Legally this is pretty much the end of the line now. My PhD is now looking at other aspects such as social harm, accountability and the ongoing suffering that is experienced by so many people and how these issues could be dealt with in other ways.
There will never be a resolution whereby everyone is happy or everyone feels that justice has been truly served. For people who say that 32 years is long enough or ‘move on’ they should try standing in the shoes of the family members of the 96 victims or those who attended the match and suffered unimaginable devastation.
JFT96
-
Legally this is pretty much the end of the line now. My PhD is now looking at other aspects such as social harm, accountability and the ongoing suffering that is experienced by so many people and how these issues could be dealt with in other ways.
There will never be a resolution whereby everyone is happy or everyone feels that justice has been truly served. For people who say that 32 years is long enough or ‘move on’ they should try standing in the shoes of the family members of the 96 victims or those who attended the match and suffered unimaginable devastation.
JFT96
Sorry I never replied to this Petey. Your words a resonant in a sad way.
-
Sorry I never replied to this Petey. Your words a resonant in a sad way.
No worries at all Roch. It’s just been very tough for everybody affected by Hillsborough, whether they are family members of the victims, people who were at the match and survived, but also people people who were directly or indirectly affected in any way.
Just because 32 years has passed does not mean the pain, suffering and emotional trauma just stops. This was then exacerbated over time with everything those associated with Hillsborough have been through in defending the good name of those that died and emotions were further heightened again this week as SYP and WMP agreed to pay significant compensation damages for the cover up of Hillsborough.
Sadly, there is just no end to the ongoing pain and suffering.
JFT96
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6OKy8cmUdk
-
Same stadium, 1981:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHbVXr1-2xo
-
Cops, 'altered the contents of their witness statements several times', and many had to be given new notebooks to rewrite their 'made up evidence(s) in! Notebook issuing registers had to be destroyed and rewrote to accommodate the lies that the authorities need to be done! Mmnm..
'South Yorkshe 'and 'Nottinghamshire pokice' in the thick of the then time period of government/official corruption'!!
Which victims are next to be apologised to, and compensated?
-
'There were many police enquiries, investigations in between the early to mid 80's to mid 90's, during which South Yorkshire Police, and in particular, the No. 3 Regional Crime Squad ('No. 3, RCS') where police officers altered witness statents, and tampered with their daily notebook entries, in order to produce evidence which could be relied upon to present a fabricated account of one thing or another. Some police officers ripped pages out of their notebooks, which they replacd with blank pages from an unissued notebook. Others simply obtained a second notebook, which they altered the version of the evidence that they had originally recorded. This led, in those instances, to some police officers running two different notebooks, at the same time, when police regulations stipulated that a serving police officer can only have issued to him one notebook until it is full of daily activities, and duty's. In each instance, a senior officer had to be satisfied that a current notebook was full, before he authorised a replacement book. Each notebook had an embossed serial number on its front cover which was recorded in 'a notebook issuing register', against the 'issuing officers', and 'recipient of the replacement notebook' (signatures of each officer involved in each transaction).. ) Many 'notebook issuing registers' went 'missing' or were 'deliberately destroyed' in an attempt to hide/conceal the truth!!!
Some of the witness statements were altered without the named author having had any knowledge that their original statements had been edited by senior officers, and or at the behest of a senior CPS official. These practices were regularly performed in 'civil', and 'Criminal' proceedings!
-
Essex police were/are guilty of adopting similar tactics in the case of 'Jeremy Bamber' and 'the murders of four victims, along with (originally)' one suicide', which became changed a month later, into a case of 'five murders'. Between themselves, 'Essex, Police', 'relatives', a couple of ballistic experts', and a blood expert', tampered with exhibits, exhibit labels, two different sound moderators, which all parties involved in this deception, all made out that the two sound moderators, were merged and treated as though both were the same item, with a variety of different exhibit references allocated to a number of different people (for example), 'SBJ/1'[Stanley Brian Jones] , 'SJ/1' [Stan Jones] , 'DB/1'[ David Boutflour' 'AE/1' [Ann Eaton] , `CAE/1' [Christine Ann Eaton] 'and' DRB/1'[`David Robert Boutflour] referred to in a variety of different sources, also bearing, inconsistent 'item reference numbers' recorded in official `police property registers`, 'statements' , 'lab reports' ('22' and '23'). A total of 'three different occasions when the sound moderator was either found' or was 'seized from the crime scene' (7th August 1985', by 'DS Jones; followed by' another allege find of the same sound moderator' by 'David Robert Boutflour' on the '10th August 1985' and 'according to an offial police phone call record' , they were notified by 'David Robert Boutflour' that 'on or about' the '11th/12th September 1985'. 'The same sound moderator' was 'submitted to the' Lab' for examination, on 'three separate occasions' , namely the '13th August 1985', followed by 'a 2nd submission date' to 'the same lab' , on the '30th August 1985', and 'A further submission' on the' 20th September 1985'..
Between the 'two different sound moderators', 'it/them' were 'fingerprinted' on 'three separate occasions' during the 'two acknowledged police investigations', (firstly) fingerprinted by way of 'oblique light technique', on the '15th August 1985', by 'DI Ronald Cook', then fingerprinted a second time, using 'Superglue treatment', on the '23rd August 1985', again by 'DI Ronald Cook'. According to official police records, 'Detetive sergeants' , 'Eastwood' and 'Davison' fingerprinted 'the/a' 'Sound' Moderator', on the '13th September 1985', 'albeit' no information regarding the type of technique that was 'performed on this last occasion', by 'DS Eastwood' and 'DS Davison' (headquarters, SOCO)..
The fingerprint examination of 'the/a' sound moderator on the '13th September 1985', stands/and is, 'Problematic'!
Since, the '2nd/third submissions' of 'the/a' sound moderator, on the '30th August 1985', and the '20th September, 1985'..
Rather 'astonishingly', once the 2nd submission of 'the/a' sound moderator['DB/1', 'item no. 23'], to the lab for examination, on the '30th August 1985', because once one of the ballistic experts for the prosecution ('Malcolm Fletcher') passed 'the/a' sound moderator, which he had received, on the' 30th August 1985', 'the/a sound moderator', he 'received' from 'DI Ronald Cook', was dismantled by the prosecutions 'blood expert', he stated that he found blood [some of which] had settled on the the first 7 or 8,of the '17 internal baffle plates of the sound moderator' , in question..
-
The Jeremy Bamber case and Hillsborough are polaroid opposites. Please stop denigrating the deaths of the 96 for point scoring purposes.
JFT96
-
The Jeremy Bamber case and Hillsborough are polaroid opposites. Please stop denigrating the deaths of the 96 for point scoring purposes.
JFT96
Stop, trying to say, that police corruption, in civil/criminal proceedings, are totally different to one another! 'police corruption', 'dishonesty', 'altering witness statements', rewriting notebook entries', 'altering police records', 'logs', 'and a cover up in general by the authorities', gives the terrible ordeal that the victims of the hillsboro disaster, and their families, and friends, and members of the public, are entitled to any greater degree of justice, than anyone else who has been on the receiving end, of the very same tactics adopted in 'hillsboro', or any other legal case, whether it be civil/criminal'.
Please pay atte tion to what I am specifically saying next, 'who the fuck, do you think you are', having a go at me, like that scumbag police informant burglar, 'Graham Thompson'. 'your attitude is as bad, if not worse than his! You have a go at me mate, then I' m gonna have a go at 'you'..
Please be aware, that 'you did not die in the hillsboro tragedy, and also that you have never spent time in custody for something that. You were not responsible for (whether it be a civil/criminal matter)..
' For your fucking information, matey', how do you think the alteration of police officers witness statements, and dodgy notebook entries, linked, associated, connected to the hillsboro debacle, first came/ was brought to the attention of the so called, 'hillsboro panel?
' Hey', 'matey', 'I was the individual' who posted the information to them, that 'South Yorkshire Police' had been exposed by 'the/a Greater Manchester Police investigation' into a series of complaints made by myself', that they were a dishonest organision, who had been/would, do anything and everything, to seek a cover up, where they were inadequate in carrying out a proper police investigation, into any civil/criminal matter!
'it was me', matey - I sent copies of the revealed interim report, produced by Greater Manchester police, in/as a result of complaints I made about the conduct and misbehaviour of some/many/but not all South Yorkshire police officers...
I sent all the information from 'HMP Full Sutton', and 'upon my release (temporarily) from custody', to your lot about the corrupt practices involving South Yorkshire police. Whilst I was in ('unlawfully') held convicted/sentenced to crimes that I could not/did not commit, 'prison/ home office' records 'will confirm that which I am telling you, is/was true!
Please' Stop', trying to 'denegarate', what happened in/at the hillsboro tragedy/cover up, was/is far worse than what happen to 'people like me' , and 'me'...
I did not die during the hillsboro disaster, but my right to a normal life was cruelly taken from me - I am still suffering from what the police/authorities are responsible for doing to me (I might as well have died/been killed, by the way South Yorkshire police conducted themselves when unlawfully dealing with me, and many, many others (criminally)... (forget
Another thing, 'Matey', don't you dare say, that because I refer to the stadium, where the 96 Liverpool victims were crushed to death/and died, as 'Hillsboro' rather than 'Hillsborough', that I am in someway trying/doing/was/is denigrating what actually took place there!
If you and yours, are getting from 'South Yorkshire police' , and 'Nottinghamshire police' who acknowledge that they acted unlawfully/illegally and that compensation will be forthcoming to victims of the 'hillsboro tragedy', then 'of course', anyone who has suffered as a result of these criminalised activities, should/will 'also be entitled to a similar compasation package', from and by the two named police authorities, 'South Yorkshire police' /'Nottinghamshire police'..
'PLEASE STOP' having a go 'at me,' since, I have done everything to 'aid' , 'assist' , the 'hillsboro panel', in getting to the truth!
If you are not happy here on our forum, please find some whare else to 'spout off' your bullshit, blaming/having a go at me!
I am on your side, and the side of the 96 (death) 'victims of the tragedy', and 'family/friends',and 'members of the public'. you prick!
-
The 97th victim..https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/hillsborough-s-97th-victim-liverpool-fan-andrew-devine-dies-32-years-after-life-changing-injuries-in-disaster/ar-AAMFXgS?ocid=msedgntp