Hillsborough jury retires to consider its verdicts

[Triggaaar]

The evidence heard during the Inquest could well lead the jury to think otherwise.

Possibly. I would be surprised if fans didn't push at all, so that would have contributed to the dangerous situation. And if a gate is open I'd imagine fans to push their way in, so it's not unusual or unforeseeable. But yes of course there could be other, less obvious reasons.

 

[GT49er]

They are summoned, but with this particular Inquest, bearing in mind how long they knew it was going to take, there would have been some negotiation.

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/626/coroners/5536/information_for_jurors/8

When you are assigned a 'case' as a part of a jury, if they think the case will run for more than two weeks then they ask you if that will cause you any problems. More often than not you are excused that case if you say it will cause you problems.

OK. Didn't know that.

How on earth do they get a jury - to do a stressful job on low pay which they can't even talk about at home, for two years - without a bit of compulsion? It's difficult to imagine 12 people doing it entirely voluntarily.

 

[edna krabappel]

I don't see how answering 'no' to the other questions is going to be unequivocal given the requirement to then go into what 'may' have contributed.

Is this just going to be strung out until enough people who were responsible (or may have been responsible) have died so they can take the blame?

An inquest- as the Coroner will have outlined- is a question of fact, not a question of blame. It is there to formally ascertain the facts of who died, when they died, where they died and how they died: whether that is one person in a car crash or ninety six at a football stadium. If the jury in this inquest finds that (for example) David Duckenfield did not fulfil his responsibilities properly on the day, it doesn't then lead to him facing a criminal trial over it*. It merely establishes the facts to be recorded on the death certificates of the deceased.

*It might make a civil claim more likely, though I'm not sure if that sort of thing has already been done, or whether the time elapsed since the disaster would rule such a claim out.

 

[El Presidente]

OK. Didn't know that.

How on earth do they get a jury - to do a stressful job on low pay which they can't even talk about at home, for two years - without a bit of compulsion? It's difficult to imagine 12 people doing it entirely voluntarily.

My experience of jury service was a chastening one. There are many people, mainly elderly, who see it as a day out with free biscuits, some expenses and a chance to have a chat and a game of Jenga. For the ten days I was I sat in the jury area, we were called to form a jury four times. On three of those occasions the defendant changed his plea to guilty at the final moment, so we were then dismissed.

For the one trial that I did attend, the evidence was appallingly presented, and it took two minutes to reach a verdict. I was made foreman of the jury by my fellow jurors because "You sounded confident reading the oath". There was no attempt to discuss background, conflicts or anything else that could have influenced such a decision.

 

[The Albion Roar]

Possibly. I would be surprised if fans didn't push at all, so that would have contributed to the dangerous situation. And if a gate is open I'd imagine fans to push their way in, so it's not unusual or unforeseeable. But yes of course there could be other, less obvious reasons.

But it's not even necessarily the gate being opened that caused the problem, though it may have been a mitigating factor. Something the jury must decide.

Were fans pushing? Maybe. Did that lead to an unforeseeable problem? Could the fans foresee a problem? Could the police? It's where fans went, or were directed to or away from (or not directed to or away from), and the actions resulting from that that also the jury must consider.

And this has all been covered in the presentation of the evidence.

BTW - I'm saying 'may be' while commenting on this, as even on a football fans' forum, could constitute contempt of court, as the Inquest is still ongoing. And don't forget, the Coroner's Court is the highest court in the land.

 

[rippleman]

If the verdict is "unlawful killing" I doubt that anybody will face a criminal prosecution anyway. The CPS usually deem it "not in the public interest" to prosecute officials.

They decided it wasn't "in the public interest" to prosecute a police Inspector in Worthing caught robbing from M&S some years back. (The Chief Constable then accepted her application to retire early on health grounds the day before she was due to face a disciplinary hearing, so she could keep her pension)

All arse about face if you ask me. It should always be in the public interest to prosecute those in positions of authority and responsibility whether the offence be shoplifting or manslaughter. But then its never going to happen that way is it?

 

[The Albion Roar]

Verdicts due to be announced at 11am today.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Question 6 - unlawfully killed? Verdict: Yes

 

[rippleman]

AT LAST!!!!

JUSTICE FOR THE 96

Now we can only hope that the full weight of the law is used to prosecute all the bent coppers who conspired to put the families through 26 years of hell.

 

[BBassic]

This is incredible.

Gross negligence by the police.
Unlawful killing.

Finally.

I wonder if the Sun will run with a headline of "Sorry" tomorrow?

 

[KZNSeagull]

All answers yes so far (up to question 10) other than question 7.

 

[nicko31]

Possibly. I would be surprised if fans didn't push at all, so that would have contributed to the dangerous situation. And if a gate is open I'd imagine fans to push their way in, so it's not unusual or unforeseeable. But yes of course there could be other, less obvious reasons.

You heard it, a "no" to question 7 regarding crowd behaviour. No one pushed, the behaviour of the crowd did not contribute to the situation at all

 

[rippleman]

From the Beeb

"Following today's verdicts, the CPS confirms it will now begin considering criminal charges over Hillsborough"

Let's hope they don't take another 26 years before prosecuting the *******s responsible.