Hillsborough Inquest update

[Martyn Sadler]

Can we cut out the personal insults?

 

I think we have to respect the fact that this is an extremely sensitive topic.

 

We also should recognise that Derwent is making a reasonable point about the reliability of eye-witness evidence generally, not specifically in relation to the Hillsborough disaster.

 

If this topic were not so sensitive, that would be a relatively uncontroversial point to make.

 

I suspect that we would all agree that the tragedy is represented by the 96 deaths of innocent people, but the crime is represented by the attempts to cover up who was responsible for the tragedy, and in particular by the attempts to shift the blame onto those innocent people.

[Tiny Tim]

 

We also should recognise that Derwent is making a reasonable point about the reliability of eye-witness evidence generally, not specifically in relation to the Hillsborough disaster.

 

 

An interesting point for discussion but don't want to drag things off topic. Essentially eye witness testimony can be very unreliable and influenced by many factors. Lots of articles out there on the interweb.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177082.stm

 

http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html

[Steve Fox]

They will never know the truth as there are too many different versions of it. Too many individuals involved to ever get the complete unmitigated truth. I reckon if you had ten eye witnesses and asked them individually what happened then they would all give different accounts, such was the panic and trauma of the situation. What they actually want is a convenient truth, and that's fine because I would feel the same way too, they can't be criticised for that.

On the wider subject of recriminations, I think the issue needs to be sub-divided into the actual events on the day and the subsequent cover up. I find it difficult to see how anyone could be prosecuted for events on the day, yes bad decisions were made but I am sure they were taken for valid reasons at the time and I am also sure nobody took a decision that intended loss of life to occur. It is only hindsight that shows them to be bad decisions though. However, on the cover up that subsequently took place, then anyone and everyone who was party to that process should be brought to account regardless of their status.

We know what happened to cause the disaster. That has been established beyond any doubt.

It's the cover-up which attempted to blame the fans and exonerate the police which is now under investigation.

[Saintslass]

It's the cover-up which attempted to blame the fans and exonerate the police which is now under investigation.

The cover up is indeed being investigated but also culpability on the day.  Potential contraventions of health and safety legislation are one of the offences being looked at in the criminal investigations.

[Futtocks]

Can we cut out the personal insults?

 

I think we have to respect the fact that this is an extremely sensitive topic.

 

We also should recognise that Derwent is making a reasonable point about the reliability of eye-witness evidence generally, not specifically in relation to the Hillsborough disaster.

 

If this topic were not so sensitive, that would be a relatively uncontroversial point to make.

 

I suspect that we would all agree that the tragedy is represented by the 96 deaths of innocent people, but the crime is represented by the attempts to cover up who was responsible for the tragedy, and in particular by the attempts to shift the blame onto those innocent people.

Quite. Calling people names is inappropriate.

 

Also, yes, eye-witness testimony will vary.

 

But if the investigation team can lay their hands on any documents that haven't already been burnt or shredded, that will be the main part of the material gathered. So, as a source of evidence, that will not be coloured by emotion or faulty memory after all the years. 

[John Drake]

I've had my fair share of warnings over the years on here and I suspect the way this thread is going there's going to be more handed out soon plus bans and this thread could be locked.....which would be a shame as there has been some interesting discussions and I think this is a topic close to many people's hearts.

 

Chill pills and relax

 

Indeed.

 

I've now edited out the worst of it.

 

A few people need to climb off their high horses on this forum generally, not just this thread. It is always the same handful of people going at each other, regardless of the subject matter.

 

If it continues, after this, there will be suspensions dished out.

[JohnM]

it seems to me that on the day the actions of individuals - fans, policemen and women, ambulance people etc at the scene of this terrible episode were based on what they thought they were seeng. thus a cop confronted with screaming fans maybe acted in a way that was wrong given the big picture. indeed, some years ago, the Guardian ran a t v advert based on this very premise. a street scene unfolded event by event, some of which looked quite criminal. it was only when the camera pulled back and the scenes rerun that you could really see what happened.

clearly, all the issues covered in enquiries, report and this latest inquest paint a picture of mistake after mistake, cover up after cover up, but its worth remembering that if most people on or near the pitch only had limited perspective and information, they might not have acted or reacted adequately.

this is where the issues of the reliability of eye witness accounts comes in. there is a wealth of research on this topic.

It is in no ones interest in my view to demonise those who raise these issues, since they relate not to ground safety, poor planning, cover ups etc, but to how individuals on the spot acted the way they did.

[Bob8]

Neither case relied on eye-witness accounts.  One relied on people in authority saying it was one way, the other case relied on an overwhelming avalanche of evidence.  

 

While I accept that much of the discussion of eye witness accounts, certainly from Saintslass and JohnM, is in good faith, I find it a red herring.

[JohnM]

A red herring?

[Bob8]

A red herring?

Yes.  As in it is a distraction.  If eye witness accounts were crucial, then the unreliability of eye-witness accounts would be very relevant.  But they are not.

[Robin Evans]

I see Arthur's chelpin into the Orgreave debate now.....

[Derwent]

Yes.  As in it is a distraction.  If eye witness accounts were crucial, then the unreliability of eye-witness accounts would be very relevant.  But they are not.

.

Seems to me you have your wires crossed. I think you are still talking about the inquest, I made the point in regard to the criminal prosecution suggestion, they aren't the same thing. To secure criminal convictions then eye witness accounts would be very relevant. You appear to have extrapolated that into something completely different.

[JohnM]

To be clear I am not trying to divert anything.

I am not talking about or denying the inquest findings.

I am not talking about or denying the cover up.

I am not talking about the current investigations

I am talking about the actions or inactions of ordinary people -fans, stewards, paramedics, individual cops etc inside the ground who may have been deprived of information that might have caused them to act differently had they had more accurate information from the various controlling authorities.

[JonM]

The BBC Cameras were rolling throughout the whole disaster; the film was seized by the police shortly afterwards and while some of the footage was destroyed, not all was. There was also CCTV coverage of key parts of the ground. While you can make the argument that video evidence has flaws too, the fact that it corroborates most eyewitness accounts will be significant in any prosecutions, particularly as the video evidence has mostly not been made available to the public and so not seen by many witnesses.

 

I am talking about the actions or inactions of ordinary people -fans, stewards, paramedics, individual cops etc inside the ground who may have been deprived of information that might have caused them to act differently had they had more accurate information from the various controlling authorities.

 

Indeed. Would the police have been hitting people with truncheons had they known what was happening? Would they have sent away the ambulances if they had known that they were killing people by doing so? We have to assume that they would not have done.

[Derwent]

To be clear I am not trying to divert anything.

I am not talking about or denying the inquest findings.

I am not talking about or denying the cover up.

I am not talking about the current investigations

I am talking about the actions or inactions of ordinary people -fans, stewards, paramedics, individual cops etc inside the ground who may have been deprived of information that might have caused them to act differently had they had more accurate information from the various controlling authorities.

 

Nail. Head. Hit.

[Saintslass]

For those expressing doubt about Orgreave, the unredacted report has now been submitted to the IPCC. 

[ckn]

Media manipulation during the inquest

[Robin Evans]

I live in South yorks.

I have friends n family on duty at Hillsborough.

I worked for the coal board in 84....

South yorks police eh..... what a bag o' sheeite

[Griff9of13]

Media manipulation during the inquest

Given the strict reporting restrictions specified by the coroner, including the use of social media there should be a case for a change of contempt of court. If they were trying to subtlety influence the jury you could add attempting to pervert the course of justice.

What is in no doubt is that SYPs culture hasn't changed in the slightest over the last 30 years; they still seem to believe that they are above the law.

[Griff9of13]

For those who have not yet seen it the documentary Hillsborough will be finally aired on UK television on BBC2 on Sunday at 9pm. 

[Jasper]

it seems to me that on the day the actions of individuals - fans, policemen and women, ambulance people etc at the scene of this terrible episode were based on what they thought they were seeng. thus a cop confronted with screaming fans maybe acted in a way that was wrong given the big picture. indeed, some years ago, the Guardian ran a t v advert based on this very premise. a street scene unfolded event by event, some of which looked quite criminal. it was only when the camera pulled back and the scenes rerun that you could really see what happened.

 

 

Re what JohnM says above, I saw this view of a policeman that was at Hillsborough, from another site.  I cannot link to that site, but hope its ok to cut and paste some of what he said in the article here -

 

I have considered carefully what I want to say here about Hillsborough. The media coverage over the past few days, comments in the House of Commons and the suspension of the South Yorkshire Chief Constable all persuade me to post my thoughts.

I was a Constable, Sergeant and Inspector in South Yorkshire Police and served 17yrs before leaving to run a family business. I was there on the pitch at Hillsborough when the tragedy occurred working as a PC in a public order serial which had been called into the ground when the shout went up for assistance.

I witnessed the lack of command. The almost complete radio silence from the control room at the ground and the ridiculous decision to line up our serial in front of the Notts fans thinking it was a pitch invasion whilst people at the Leppings Lane end were in obvious trouble.  I broke ranks at that moment with other officers and began helping the injured from the pitch because it was obvious that senior commanders were not reacting to the situation as they should have been.

There is no doubt in my mind that poor policing decisions and orders led to the deaths that day and it comes as no surprise that those in charge tried to deflect the blame. The culture in the force at that time was demonstrated in person by the majority of the Chief Superintendents and senior Command team. I have never come across a more arrogant, pompous and unlikeable group of individuals. They had absolute power over their Divisions (Districts now) and were completely unaccountable. What they said went and they were completely but mistakenly self assured in their ability.  That it took so long to discover the depth of the cover up from the then Chief Constable Peter Wright to the Chief Superintendents and those under their direct command is no surprise to me as no one would have dared to speak out.

 

What does offend me however is the headline in todays edition of “i” which screams ROTTEN TO THE CORE. Well that's not true either. The huge majority of officers on duty that day did just that – their duty. They helped where they could, used initiative when the chain of command failed and should be commended for their work.

And the fans – yes like all football crowds some of their number were intoxicated. I know because I saw it and we were confiscating beer from vehicles all morning. A huge haul of trays of lager and beer cans which had been brought to drink before the match. This was nothing unusual. This was the culture at the time and the reason fans were penned in like sheep at all grounds. Their behaviour in the previous decade had necessitated separation because of continued violence. So to say the fans had no responsibility is also wrong. Perhaps on the day the fans did not contribute directly to the 96 deaths but as a group their general behaviour over previous years had led to the point of wire cages on terraces.

Yes, let the people responsible face the music. Yes let Chief Superintendent Duckenfield and his immediate team be called to account but please don't call South Yorkshire Police rotten to the core. It wasn't then and I don't believe it is now.

Andy Frith, Doncaster.

[Phil]

Re what JohnM says above, I saw this view of a policeman that was at Hillsborough, from another site. I cannot link to that site, but hope its ok to cut and paste some of what he said in the article here -

I have considered carefully what I want to say here about Hillsborough. The media coverage over the past few days, comments in the House of Commons and the suspension of the South Yorkshire Chief Constable all persuade me to post my thoughts.

I was a Constable, Sergeant and Inspector in South Yorkshire Police and served 17yrs before leaving to run a family business. I was there on the pitch at Hillsborough when the tragedy occurred working as a PC in a public order serial which had been called into the ground when the shout went up for assistance.

I witnessed the lack of command. The almost complete radio silence from the control room at the ground and the ridiculous decision to line up our serial in front of the Notts fans thinking it was a pitch invasion whilst people at the Leppings Lane end were in obvious trouble. I broke ranks at that moment with other officers and began helping the injured from the pitch because it was obvious that senior commanders were not reacting to the situation as they should have been.

There is no doubt in my mind that poor policing decisions and orders led to the deaths that day and it comes as no surprise that those in charge tried to deflect the blame. The culture in the force at that time was demonstrated in person by the majority of the Chief Superintendents and senior Command team. I have never come across a more arrogant, pompous and unlikeable group of individuals. They had absolute power over their Divisions (Districts now) and were completely unaccountable. What they said went and they were completely but mistakenly self assured in their ability. That it took so long to discover the depth of the cover up from the then Chief Constable Peter Wright to the Chief Superintendents and those under their direct command is no surprise to me as no one would have dared to speak out.

What does offend me however is the headline in todays edition of “i” which screams ROTTEN TO THE CORE. Well that's not true either. The huge majority of officers on duty that day did just that – their duty. They helped where they could, used initiative when the chain of command failed and should be commended for their work.

And the fans – yes like all football crowds some of their number were intoxicated. I know because I saw it and we were confiscating beer from vehicles all morning. A huge haul of trays of lager and beer cans which had been brought to drink before the match. This was nothing unusual. This was the culture at the time and the reason fans were penned in like sheep at all grounds. Their behaviour in the previous decade had necessitated separation because of continued violence. So to say the fans had no responsibility is also wrong. Perhaps on the day the fans did not contribute directly to the 96 deaths but as a group their general behaviour over previous years had led to the point of wire cages on terraces.

Yes, let the people responsible face the music. Yes let Chief Superintendent Duckenfield and his immediate team be called to account but please don't call South Yorkshire Police rotten to the core. It wasn't then and I don't believe it is now.

Andy Frith, Doncaster.

Weasel words

[gingerjon]

The Hillsborough documentary is on tonight. I would urge everyone to watch it.

[Griff9of13]

More claims that SYP were doing everything in their power to deflect blame until the bitter end: South Yorkshire Police press officer's 'Hillsborough spin' claims to be investigated

[Griff9of13]

The excellent David Conn in today's Guardian: Orgreave inquiry calls grow after damning Hillsborough verdict for police