ewe2
Well-known member
My hope is, at last, the truth will be laid bare,and this terrible event can have some closure ( I try and imagine how i would feel as a parent in that situation ) for the familes.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield will go on trial *** Not Guilty ***
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
Hillsborough trial: No verdict over David Duckenfield
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47800960
The jury in the trial of Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield has been unable to reach a verdict.
Former Ch Supt Duckenfield, now 74, had denied the gross negligence manslaughter of 95 Liverpool fans in the 1989 disaster.
Ex-Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell has been found guilty of a charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Jurors at Preston Crown Court spent eight days deliberating.
The Crown Prosecution Service has indicated it will seek a retrial for Mr Duckenfield, of Ferndown, Dorset.
During the 10-week trial, jurors heard that 96 men, women and children died as a result of a fatal crush on the Leppings Lane terrace on 15 April 1989.
Under the law at the time, there can be no prosecution for the 96th victim, Tony Bland, as he died more than a year and a day after the disaster.
Mr Mackrell, 69, was found guilty of failing to discharge his duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act by a majority of 10 to two.
The jury deliberated for more than 29 hours but was unable to agree whether Mr Duckenfield was guilty or not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence.
The former South Yorkshire Police officer has always denied the charges.
The trial heard Mr Duckenfield ordered the opening of exit gates at the Leppings Lane end of the ground at 14:52 BST, eight minutes before kick off, after the area outside the turnstiles became dangerously overcrowded.
More than 2,000 fans entered through exit gate C once it was opened and many headed for the tunnel ahead of them, which led to the central pens where the crush happened.
Prosecutors alleged Mr Duckenfield had "ultimate responsibility" at the ground and should have made "key lifesaving decisions" on the day.
But his defence argued the case against him was "breathtakingly unfair" and said Mr Duckenfield had "tried to do the right thing".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47800960
The jury in the trial of Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield has been unable to reach a verdict.
Former Ch Supt Duckenfield, now 74, had denied the gross negligence manslaughter of 95 Liverpool fans in the 1989 disaster.
Ex-Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell has been found guilty of a charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Jurors at Preston Crown Court spent eight days deliberating.
The Crown Prosecution Service has indicated it will seek a retrial for Mr Duckenfield, of Ferndown, Dorset.
During the 10-week trial, jurors heard that 96 men, women and children died as a result of a fatal crush on the Leppings Lane terrace on 15 April 1989.
Under the law at the time, there can be no prosecution for the 96th victim, Tony Bland, as he died more than a year and a day after the disaster.
Mr Mackrell, 69, was found guilty of failing to discharge his duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act by a majority of 10 to two.
The jury deliberated for more than 29 hours but was unable to agree whether Mr Duckenfield was guilty or not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence.
The former South Yorkshire Police officer has always denied the charges.
The trial heard Mr Duckenfield ordered the opening of exit gates at the Leppings Lane end of the ground at 14:52 BST, eight minutes before kick off, after the area outside the turnstiles became dangerously overcrowded.
More than 2,000 fans entered through exit gate C once it was opened and many headed for the tunnel ahead of them, which led to the central pens where the crush happened.
Prosecutors alleged Mr Duckenfield had "ultimate responsibility" at the ground and should have made "key lifesaving decisions" on the day.
But his defence argued the case against him was "breathtakingly unfair" and said Mr Duckenfield had "tried to do the right thing".
sydney
tinky ****in winky
no mention of forged tickets at the trial...??
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
As I understand it, the judge now decides whether, in his opinion after hearing all the evidence, a different jury could reach a verdict. If he thinks that it's unlikely he could decline to order a retrial.
What is the point of a retrial after 30 years? How much will it cost the taxpayer? Pointless exercise after all this time.
Lower West Stander
Well-known member
I think the press had convinced themselves that he was guilty no matter what. In some ways its quite refreshing that the court of public opinion hasn't influenced the trial.
It was terribly tragic event and I have no idea if he was to blame or not, but given this was 30 years ago, I really think everyone has to move on.
It was terribly tragic event and I have no idea if he was to blame or not, but given this was 30 years ago, I really think everyone has to move on.
Yes Chef
Well-known member
You are an arse hole if you really think that
Yes Chef
Well-known member
Because this fallacy was dismissed just a few months after the event, in Taylor's interim report
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I said, at the time, that Sheffield Wednesday bore some responsibility for the deaths.
[tweet]1113418188295933954[/tweet]
[tweet]1113418188295933954[/tweet]
Not if you had a family member who didn't go home that day it isn't. Don't you think the families of those that died deserve justice irrespective of how long it takes?
And let's not forget that the Inquest verdict of "unlawful killing" was delayed by decades because the police conspired to alter their witness statements and lied to previous inquests, investigations and enquiries. If the police had told the truth at the outset, justice would have been served many years ago.
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
Why oh why didn’t he come clean at the outset to say that he had “x” number of options and chose what turned out to be the wrong one. From the scenes at the time it always appeared to me that people would have died outside the ground, crushed against a wall or the gates, had the gates not been opened. The whole thing is really a health and safety issue that was primarily the responsibility of the club. However, as match commander Duckenfield should have had enough experience to identify potential issues, rather than lazily assumes that previous procedures were satisfactory. This guy could have avoided 30 years of hurt by just being honest.
Last edited:
Worried Man Blues
Well-known member
Did the prosecution say what he should have done?
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
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.
CliveWalkerWingWizard
Well-known member
Not try to make the ‘hooligans’ on the pitch return to the pens ?
Not subdue evidence ?
Found innocent or guilty, the man is detritus.
Not quite sure I follow. If you have done nothing wrong how can you incriminate yourself by telling the truth?
Weststander
Well-known member
He fed lies to piece of scum Kelvin McKenzie.
How about simply being a policeman?
Weststander
Well-known member
That lie was proved wrong many years ago, as now stated by several top judges. The BBC have a key facts page somewhere, bullet pointing the proven lies.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I wasn't at the trial, but I would assume he would not have said that he chose the wrong options, and made lazy assumptions. That would not be HIS version of the truth, regardless of whether that's what you believe is the truth.
It was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of manslaughter and gross negligence, and they failed to do that.
Weststander
Well-known member
The reason for the 30 year time span, was that the first 25 years was built on a stack of lies by South Yorkshire Police & SWFC, taken apart expertedly by lawyers at an Independent Commission and Inquests. Any trials should’ve been 28 years ago, had it not been for the self-serving cover up.