Hillsborough verdict

for?

Justice must always be fought

nigglynellie
I wasn't 'lucky', I was in Liverpool, where fans may do a lot of shouting and 'mouthing off' at one another, but where actual violence was a rarity!
Liverpool and Everton fans may give one another a lot of 'verbal' but that's where it ends!

Just so Petra,

The judge can direct 'till he/she is blue in the face, but once you know something, you can't un- know it.

Is it really possibly to disregard what we have read, heard or seen Jalima? I would not be able to. May not discuss it with fellows jurors but things cannot be wiped from the mind

Anya,
There are no rose tinted spectacles on me!
You went to one match, I went to hundreds, so I think I have a better understanding of the level of 'violence' and threatening behaviour than you do! Shouting to opposing fans "I'll rip your f***in' head off if I get over there" sounds awful, but is just rivalry between fans. Many fans shout obscenities at the opposing fans/players, even the referee, it doesn't make them violent, it's part of the atmosphere!
Maybe if you'd chosen to attend more than one match, you would have discovered that for yourself!

Wouldn't a new jury be told to disregard that though anniebach?

Difficult, but the judge should direct a jury properly.
The findings of the recent inquest shed a completely different light on what happened.

Jalima, I'm too tired to answer your questions. Just read the thread and you'll find your answers
but not too tired to continue posting.

Perhaps it's time for

Who knows what names he could bring up, I agree, he will not get to court

I think that Duckenfield will be charged, but like Lord Jenner will be found unfit to face a trail.

I think the following could have influence on a criminal prosecution

In 2,000 the families brought a private prosecution against Duckenfield and Brian Murrry. Murrry was found not guilty but the jury could not reach a verdict, on Duckingfield he got off. There was an appeal for a re trial but the judge refused.

Rather a lot of judges involved over the years !

What was it Zebedee said?

nn: "The only clear reprehensible action on the part of the Police was that after the event they deliberately made a consertive effort to cover up mistakes they'd made. "

NO! You're wrong! (Fact - not opinion) Read the evidence!

jinglebells: It's quite obvious you don't know the difference between an inquest and a trial if you that the judge's conclusion matters. Nobody's going to look silly if a trial decides that Duckenfield isn't criminally guilty, because inquests and trials have different roles to play.

Frankly, Anya, your opinion of me doesn't bother me one little bit. If it takes rudeness (so-called) to attack misinformed prejudices, so be it. I'd love to know in what way you think I'm blinkered about this matter (well, maybe I would if I had nothing better to do.)

Jalima, I'm too tired to answer your questions. Just read the thread and you'll find your answers.

As I posted a few pages back, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is different from an inquest. That doesn't mean that the facts which the inquest discovered are wrong, but that a jury in a criminal trial needs to be convinced that a defendant is guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt', which isn't the case in an inquest.

Unless there's new evidence, the 'unlawful killing' verdict stands, which means it wasn't an accident, even though it might not be proved who was responsible. Duckenfield was negligent, even if he can't be proved to be criminally responsible. Liverpool fans have been exonerated of blame and that stands too.

Judges don't decide who's guilty in inquests or trials.

A different jury also could!

A different judge could come up with an entirely different conclusion. Judges don't always agree, not by a long way.

This is exactly why more investigation is needed. I just don't know Jingle, it's very difficult to speculate, but it could well be that if there's a trial he could be found not guilty. There is still along way to go before a complete conclusion is reached, and until then?!

I do know the difference between in inquest and a trial. But someone is going to look pretty silly if it comes to a trial and the verdict is that he was not guilty of manslaughter.

They didn't have to charge down those passages like that. Again, feel so sorry for the people already in their positions.

Just saying.

Jalima thank you for your post. You have explained exactly what I and I think others were trying to put forward. It was pretty obvious, but perhaps not put clearly enough. Hopefully you have rectified that, so again thank you.

How rude you are DD but worse than that you are truly blinkered. You have ignored all the points raised in this thread because they don't fit with your narrow view of this awful tradegy. Just because the verdict of the inquest was 'unlawfully killed' does not rule out the other factors that were contributory. In fact you just ignore them.

There is no point is even trying to discuss things with anyone with this attitude so I don't bother, it's a waste of my valuable time. And there's no point in coming back with more of the same as I'm signing off for now.

There you go again! I don't think getting just a tad irritated at being accused of comments that I didn't make, to the point of suggesting libel, and comments being scoffed at in a patronising way ,not just me, but to others as well, (those that is who dare put forward a particular point for serious discussion,) is being ridiculous. No one is accusing anyone or anything, but some on here have tried to see whether there might have been other contributory factors. Maybe there are, maybe there are not. We should however feel able to discuss and ask questions and put forward ideas without incurring ridicule.

So which posts state that they don't accept the rulings of the inquest?
which posts are perpetuating the myth that Liverpool fans were responsible due to stereotyped views of football fans?

I certainly did not say that but I did say that the prevailing views at the time were that for years some football fans had been violent and indulged in hooliganism and that those views which were held by the country in general (and Europe) allowed the police to cover up their actions/inactions/failings.

I think that is the point that some posters were trying to make too.
If you cannot understand that point, I am at a loss to explain it any better.
Perhaps someone else can.

Who doesn't understand the difference between an inquest and a trial?