Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
First things first - these threads never ever seem to go well - could we try and keep things at least reasonably civil, trying to keep away from the stereotypes and usual comments that cause the issues?
Expected verdict?
I suspect that it will come back as unlawful killing, however reading the conclusions that the jury have to come to to confirm that assumption i'm not so sure.
To return am unlawful killing verdict the Jury must be "sure" that match commander Ch Supt David Duckenfield was "responsible for the manslaughter by gross negligence" of those who were fatally injured
The coroner has laid out four steps jurors must consider when answering question six. Only if they are sure of each, can they conclude the 96 were unlawfully killed.
They are:
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 the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence"
Apparently the Jury have reached a majority verdict of at least 7 people.
Expected verdict?
I suspect that it will come back as unlawful killing, however reading the conclusions that the jury have to come to to confirm that assumption i'm not so sure.
To return am unlawful killing verdict the Jury must be "sure" that match commander Ch Supt David Duckenfield was "responsible for the manslaughter by gross negligence" of those who were fatally injured
The coroner has laid out four steps jurors must consider when answering question six. Only if they are sure of each, can they conclude the 96 were unlawfully killed.
They are:
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 the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence"
Apparently the Jury have reached a majority verdict of at least 7 people.
OpulentBob said:
I don't see why it's taken 25+ years.
If it's a "not guilty", then there will simply be more appeals by the families until they get the result they want.
This will not be the end of it.
I hope you're wrong on the appeal side.If it's a "not guilty", then there will simply be more appeals by the families until they get the result they want.
This will not be the end of it.
Closure on this issue - whatever the decision - is essential and (living on Merseyside) I get the feeling the families are heading in this direction. No more ceremonies at Anfield etc.
From what I can see the case has been handled in a professional and sympathetic manner with all families allowed to speak and even the convenience of the location properly thought out. Well done to all involved.
I hope PHers don't make the Sun mistake of thinking all victims were scousers or even from Merseyside. This event was the worst of its kind in the UK and the changes it brought aboutover the last 27 years have benefitted all UK football supporters.
Full list of the 14 questions they need to answer here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35...
I think the 'gross negligence' aspect is a struggle within the context of how things were done back then and how fundamentally unsafe other facets were such a ground design etc were.
However, I am certainly not in as-strong-a-position as the jury who've been there two years so there may well be things I don't know which would change my mind.
However, I am certainly not in as-strong-a-position as the jury who've been there two years so there may well be things I don't know which would change my mind.
FredClogs said:
The jury have been asked to provide a narrative verdict as well - which will be far more interesting, I'd like to see all 12 narrative verdicts published in full.
If you're thinking there's 12 jurors there aren't - there's less for an Inquest, although I think they did start with 11.RobinOakapple said:
In a blame culture there must always be someone to blame.
Well, perhaps that's because most definitely in this case some people whose job it was to make sure this never happened, failed utterly and completely. Or would you have preferred ' never mind, shyte happens and let's all forget about it'.
I'm trying to work out if some of this is date dependent
eg given the operating methods and systems available at the time.
It looks as though the decision to let the fans enter through the exit gates is the prime culprit
But previously it was said that was done to avoid a crush on the outside
If they hadn't have opened the exit gates would we still have had an inquest but a different one
eg given the operating methods and systems available at the time.
It looks as though the decision to let the fans enter through the exit gates is the prime culprit
But previously it was said that was done to avoid a crush on the outside
If they hadn't have opened the exit gates would we still have had an inquest but a different one
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff