[Football] Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield will go on trial *** Not Guilty ***

[portlock seagull]

I'm not defending his actions, but by doing what you suggest he would simply have incriminated himself. Obviously that would have been a preferable and less painful outcome for the bereaved families, but his defence team would hardly have advised him down that route.

The jury sat through the entire case, heard all the evidence, and in the end after 29 hours of deliberation some of them decided that they could not find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We can express disbelief at that from what we know, but having not been there in court, or in the jury room, we're literally in no position to judge. Whether another jury in a retrial manages to reach a verdict remains to be seen, but I think for the families sakes it should certainly go to a retrial again, as this current outcome wouldn't come anywhere near providing closure for them.

Can retrials go on until a conviction is made to give the families what they want? Shades of Brexit here. Whether he’s innocent or not, it does appear that only a guilty verdict will suffice and until then it’ll never end. Which doesn’t feel very fair, emotions a side.

 

[Easy 10]

Can retrials go on until a conviction is made to give the families what they want? Shades of Brexit here. Whether he’s innocent or not, it does appear that only a guilty verdict will suffice and until then it’ll never end. Which doesn’t feel very fair, emotions a side.

No, because a retrial jury can also return a verdict of Not Guilty, and then that would be the end of it.

 

[Nixonator]

Feels almost as good as a not guilty, judging by the influence of media and majority public opinion having already made up their minds.

The witch-hunt needs to end.

 

[portlock seagull]

Can retrials go on until a conviction is made to give the families what they want? Shades of Brexit here. Whether he’s innocent or not, it does appear that only a guilty verdict will suffice and until then it’ll never end. Which doesn’t feel very fair, emotions a side.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, if you feel justice hasn’t been done, providing you have the means to pay for, does the law allow you to continue appealing, requesting retrials and so forth until a binary (there’s that word again!) guilty or not guilty judgement is made given unproven is neither albeit people misconstrue (e.g. West Brom fans & Bong). And even then, if found not guilty or innocent, appeals can be made leading to possible retrials can’t they? My sympathies should anyone doubt are entirely with the families but from a laypersons perspective who just wants to understand the technicalities of the law here, it does appear that it’s possible this case will only end with a conviction via a sort of legal war of attrition I.e. biggest side or one with most stamina wins circa 2030 at this rate. Which would then appear contrary to our very principles I.e. innocent until proved guilty as opposed to until the money runs out

 

[portlock seagull]

No, because a retrial jury can also return a verdict of Not Guilty, and then that would be the end of it.

Cheers Easy, added a follow up before reading your reply if you’d care to comment on that also.

 

[neilbard]

I said, at the time, that Sheffield Wednesday bore some responsibility for the deaths.

[tweet]1113418188295933954[/tweet]

Surely this now makes it very difficult for a jury to convict just Duckenfield for the manslaughter of the 95?

 

[happypig]

I guess what I’m trying to say is, if you feel justice hasn’t been done, providing you have the means to pay for, does the law allow you to continue appealing, requesting retrials and so forth until a binary (there’s that word again!) guilty or not guilty judgement is made given unproven is neither albeit people misconstrue (e.g. West Brom fans & Bong). And even then, if found not guilty or innocent, appeals can be made leading to possible retrials can’t they? My sympathies should anyone doubt are entirely with the families but from a laypersons perspective who just wants to understand the technicalities of the law here, it does appear that it’s possible this case will only end with a conviction via a sort of legal war of attrition I.e. biggest side or one with most stamina wins circa 2030 at this rate. Which would then appear contrary to our very principles I.e. innocent until proved guilty as opposed to until the money runs out

If there's a retrial and a different jury also fails to reach a verdict then the judge would be very unlikely to allow a third go.

 

[Weststander]

I said, at the time, that Sheffield Wednesday bore some responsibility for the deaths.

[tweet]1113418188295933954[/tweet]

The bloke who when interviewed, simply said “No comment” on repeat. What you got to hide Mackrell?

 

[Easy 10]

I guess what I’m trying to say is, if you feel justice hasn’t been done, providing you have the means to pay for, does the law allow you to continue appealing, requesting retrials and so forth until a binary (there’s that word again!) guilty or not guilty judgement is made given unproven is neither albeit people misconstrue (e.g. West Brom fans & Bong). And even then, if found not guilty or innocent, appeals can be made leading to possible retrials can’t they? My sympathies should anyone doubt are entirely with the families but from a laypersons perspective who just wants to understand the technicalities of the law here, it does appear that it’s possible this case will only end with a conviction via a sort of legal war of attrition I.e. biggest side or one with most stamina wins circa 2030 at this rate. Which would then appear contrary to our very principles I.e. innocent until proved guilty as opposed to until the money runs out

If there's a retrial and a different jury also fails to reach a verdict then the judge would be very unlikely to allow a third go.

That.

And if a 'not guilty' verdict was reached, I doubt whether they'd entertain an appeal after all this time, unless there were some serious grounds for one.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Surely this now makes it very difficult for a jury to convict just Duckenfield for the manslaughter of the 95?

No, they were different charges.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

Not try to make the ‘hooligans’ on the pitch return to the pens ?
Not subdue evidence ?
Found innocent or guilty, the man is detritus.

Sorry, yes that was disgusting, I wasn't being facetious, I wondered what his alternatives were in that position where there was a crush outside.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Sorry, yes that was disgusting, I wasn't being facetious, I wondered what his alternatives were in that position where there was a crush outside.

To make sure the fans went into the side pens and not the middle. Many fans died in the tunnel because they had no idea the middle pens were already full. The two pens either side were nearly empty.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

To make sure the fans went into the side pens and not the middle. Many fans died in the tunnel because they had no idea the middle pens were already full. The two pens either side were nearly empty.

Yes, the gates to the centre pens needed to have been closed. I am not sure whose responsibility it was to identify when they were full and whose decision it would have been to shut them. The stadium officials or the police? It doesn’t appear that anyone identified the problem (other than the tv commentators who noted it at the time). Even if they had, it would have been to late to get the gates shut and impossible to reverse the flow.

 

[GT49er]

I'm almost beginning to have doubts about our juries at the moment, I'm afraid. Just who are they getting to sit on them?

First, someone tries an inadvisable loop at suicidally low height over a busy road and kills 11 people. That's OK mate, yeh, it could happen to anybody.....Not Guilty!

Then gross incompetence, followed by an elaborate and planned series of lies evasions and cover-ups, 96 dead. Oh, err...well,,, can't really make up our minds about that one.

Yes, OK all you legal experts before you tell me - I know I wasn't there, I didn't here all the evidence, it's just my ill-informed opinion and all that. But .... just looking on from the outside as an ordinary bloke on the street, both verdicts (or lack of verdicts) look bonkers to me!

 

[portlock seagull]

If there's a retrial and a different jury also fails to reach a verdict then the judge would be very unlikely to allow a third go.

Cheers, thanks for explaining. Appreciated

 

[Bodian]

I'm almost beginning to have doubts about our juries at the moment, I'm afraid. Just who are they getting to sit on them?

Then gross incompetence, followed by an elaborate and planned series of lies evasions and cover-ups, 96 dead. Oh, err...well,,, can't really make up our minds about that one.

The thing is, he was being tried for manslaughter - not for the post-event actions. And I think manslaughter can sometimes be quite difficult to prove, as you have to effectively show that the person charged should have known what the result of their actions would have been.

So, for instance, deliberately driving at a pedestrian with an intent to kill them is murder, unthinkingly driving onto a pavement where people are and killing someone are would probably be manslaughter because the driver should have known what the likely outcome of their actions would be. Driving without due care (like taking your eyes off the road), going onto the pavement, and killing a pedestrian would likely be causing a death through careless driving. Having a car come at you on the wrong side of the road and swerving to avoid it, and ending up on the pavement killing a pedestrian is what - death by misadventure? (not sure).

So, a panicky decision trying to avert something else (crush outside the ground), but without fully thinking it through is basically what seems to have happened at Hillsborough - where does that fit in the scenarios above? It would appear that some of the jury felt that this was short of manslaughter.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

The thing is, he was being tried for manslaughter - not for the post-event actions. And I think manslaughter can sometimes be quite difficult to prove, as you have to effectively show that the person charged should have known what the result of their actions would have been.

So, for instance, deliberately driving at a pedestrian with an intent to kill them is murder, unthinkingly driving onto a pavement where people are and killing someone are would probably be manslaughter because the driver should have known what the likely outcome of their actions would be. Driving without due care (like taking your eyes off the road), going onto the pavement, and killing a pedestrian would likely be causing a death through careless driving. Having a car come at you on the wrong side of the road and swerving to avoid it, and ending up on the pavement killing a pedestrian is what - death by misadventure? (not sure).

So, a panicky decision trying to avert something else (crush outside the ground), but without fully thinking it through is basically what seems to have happened at Hillsborough - where does that fit in the scenarios above? It would appear that some of the jury felt that this was short of manslaughter.

The man shouldn't have been in charge in the first place, lacking the experience required for such a high profile game. He was faced with a potentially dangerous situation outside the ground, that was escalating out of control. Fans being crushed, climbing turnstiles and getting in. Fans seeing the crush, giving up and going home. It was clearly a difficult situation but one that should have been managed better. The massive surge inside, once gates had been opened, was uncontrollable without immediate and short-term planning. There was no opportunity to check tickets and insufficient stewarding to direct most people to the outer pens. Mob rule took over.
It is no surprise that the jury couldn't come to a decision. There were too many extenuating circumstances and too many other people who should have done more to help the situation.

 

[Commander]

I'm almost beginning to have doubts about our juries at the moment, I'm afraid. Just who are they getting to sit on them?

First, someone tries an inadvisable loop at suicidally low height over a busy road and kills 11 people. That's OK mate, yeh, it could happen to anybody.....Not Guilty!

Then gross incompetence, followed by an elaborate and planned series of lies evasions and cover-ups, 96 dead. Oh, err...well,,, can't really make up our minds about that one.

Yes, OK all you legal experts before you tell me - I know I wasn't there, I didn't here all the evidence, it's just my ill-informed opinion and all that. But .... just looking on from the outside as an ordinary bloke on the street, both verdicts (or lack of verdicts) look bonkers to me!

Have you done jury service? The main thing I learnt from it was that it's pointless commenting on cases from the outside, when you can't know exactly what has happened in the courtroom.

 

[Easy 10]

Have you done jury service? The main thing I learnt from it was that it's pointless commenting on cases from the outside, when you can't know exactly what has happened in the courtroom.

I have, and I found it a real eye-opener.

I was part of a jury that acquitted a footballer who was up on a charge of affray. He was involved in a brawl with someone in a pub that also spilled outside. We saw the whole incident play out on CCTV. At one point, the defendant took a glass tumbler and smashed it over the back of the other guys head, leaving him needing 11 stitches. When we saw that, frankly I was utterly amazed that ABH/GBH wasn't on the chargesheet as well, but it wasn't, so all we were considering was the charge of affray.

You'd THINK it was an open and shut case, guilty as charged. However, the direction from the judge was that when considering the evidence, in order to find someone guilty of affray, you (as an 'able bodied person') would have to place yourself at the scene during the incident, and believe that you yourself would feel personally physically in danger by the actions of the defendant.

Given that context, I had to say no. I've been in pubs plenty of times when its gone off between a couple of pissheads. Would I feel in any danger or personally threatened ? Nope, I'd probably just watch, but stay out of it. They're not coming after me are they. The rest of the jury agreed, so he got off.

My point being, when weighing up the verdict, we don't know what direction and what considerations the judge has asked the jury to base their decision on. So you're absolutely right, if you didn't sit in on the case, then its fairly futile deciphering how the verdict was arrived at.

 

[Commander]

I have, and I found it a real eye-opener.

I was part of a jury that acquitted a footballer who was up on a charge of affray. He was involved in a brawl with someone in a pub that also spilled outside. We saw the whole incident play out on CCTV. At one point, the defendant took a glass tumbler and smashed it over the back of the other guys head, leaving him needing 11 stitches. When we saw that, frankly I was utterly amazed that ABH/GBH wasn't on the chargesheet as well, but it wasn't, so all we were considering was the charge of affray.

You'd THINK it was an open and shut case, guilty as charged. However, the direction from the judge was that when considering the evidence, in order to find someone guilty of affray, you (as an 'able bodied person') would have to place yourself at the scene during the incident, and believe that you yourself would feel personally physically in danger by the actions of the defendant.

Given that context, I had to say no. I've been in pubs plenty of times when its gone off between a couple of pissheads. Would I feel in any danger or personally threatened ? Nope, I'd probably just watch, but stay out of it. They're not coming after me are they. The rest of the jury agreed, so he got off.

My point being, when weighing up the verdict, we don't know what direction and what considerations the judge has asked the jury to base their decision on. So you're absolutely right, if you didn't sit in on the case, then its fairly futile deciphering how the verdict was arrived at.

Exactly that. And you have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. It's impossible to comment from the outside when you don't know what direction has been given and what evidence has been given or withheld.