Hillsborough document release

[999tigger]

More likely it'll be the same evidence which has been manipulated to give a slightly different result and therefore cause for concern

 

Not really. If there had been full and frank disclosure to the Tailor report without any doctoring of information by certain members of SYP, then there would be no need for a new inquest or even the Hillsborough panel.

 

The cover up is unprecedented. The new inquest is meant to go part of the way to doing the job that should have been carried out 25 years ago.

 

The people who did the outrageous cover up are to blame. All that should be revealed is the truth. Quite why you have cause for concer is rather mystifying. If someone lied 25 years ago and misled, then wouldnt you wnat the true version now? Why would knowing the truth cause you concern?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

I get the feeling that there is more of a witch hun out for the police now. What certain officers have done by covering things up is scandalous. They were also negligent and woefully inadequate in crowd control techniques. People forget at the time the reason why fencing was up was becayse of the general problem of football hooliganism that had made it neccessary.

 

I do think the level of blame will swing too far one way and other people who played a part in being difficult to handle will escape any criticism whatsoever. There were many officers and Sheffielders who helped as best they could on the day.

 

I will be glad when the Inquest and prosecutions are over, so everyone can move on (although I expect if you lossed a loved one that day you never really get over it).

A good and well-rounded post. Thank you for some sanity on this thread.

[Kidorry]

Not really. If there had been full and frank disclosure to the Tailor report without any doctoring of information by certain members of SYP, then there would be no need for a new inquest or even the Hillsborough panel.

 

The cover up is unprecedented. The new inquest is meant to go part of the way to doing the job that should have been carried out 25 years ago.

 

The people who did the outrageous cover up are to blame. All that should be revealed is the truth. Quite why you have cause for concer is rather mystifying. If someone lied 25 years ago and misled, then wouldnt you wnat the true version now? Why would knowing the truth cause you concern?

 

But the full truth will not come out as too the deaths of the spectators,only the truth as the relatives see it.They are only blaming the police when that is not the whole truth.How many of the local residents or other supporters have been interviewed?

[Mr Bloom]

In the absence of that, David Conn's Twitter feed is giving regular updates from the inquest.

 

https://twitter.com/david_conn

 

(And bear in mind it is expected to last "about a year". It's difficult to imagine any radio/internet/Tv channel could keep broadcasting that for that length of time.)

 

Oh that's really interesting. Thank you very much for that.

 

Your twitter link has led me to this: (where transcripts can be found) THANK YOU

 

http://hillsboroughinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearings/2014-04-01am/

Edited April 2, 2014 by Mr Bloom

[Kidorry]

Could someone please explain to me why all the characters of the dead supporters have got to be read out in court ,other than trying to sway the jury.

[Hemibr]

Perhaps because its an inquest

[Mr Bloom]

Could someone please explain to me why all the characters of the dead supporters have got to be read out in court ,other than trying to sway the jury.

 

Taken directly from the inquest transcripts relate to the 'pen portraits':

 

http://hillsboroughinquests.independent.gov.uk/

Edited April 29, 2015 by Mr Bloom

[Kidorry]

The following extracts taken directly from the inquest transcripts relate to the 'pen portraits':

 

http://hillsboroughinquests.independent.gov.uk/

 

"First, the background evidence concerning those who

died. For each of the 96 people who died, we shall hear

either a family member give evidence or a family

statement read. This evidence will tell you about the

person who died, including their life, their character,

their plans, and their prospects. It is important,

because it will place the 96 people who died at the heart of this process."

 

"Straight away, you can put to one side the blue

file, which has 96 numbered dividers with nothing in but

the dividers. That will be for documents concerning each of those who died, and you will be given those documents to add to the blue file as the hearing proceeds. So you can put that to one side."

 

"The 96 deaths and their causes. 82 people were

declared dead in the stadium. 12 were declared dead at

Page 52

hospital, either immediately on arrival or after some

attempts to treat them. I have already touched upon

that. Another person, Lee Nicol, survived for two days

on a life support machine before he, too, died. The

96th victim of the Hillsborough disaster was Tony Bland.

He survived until 1993, but with severe brain damage,

which left him in what is called a persistent vegetative

state. After a legal battle, his life supporting

treatment was removed, and he died nearly four years

after the disaster.

The youngest victim of the disaster was just 10; the

oldest was 67. The majority were young people, 38 being

under the age of 20, a further 40 being under the age of

30. 89 were men, 7 were women or girls. Those who died

included a father and son, three pairs of brothers,

a pair of sisters, and friends who had come to watch the

match.

Over the coming days, you will hear much more detail

about each of those who have died. The accounts which

their relatives will give about their lives, their

personalities, their hopes, their plans, will be

extremely moving. There is no doubt that this one

disaster encompasses very many individual human

tragedies."

 

From reading the transcripts above and the background to the inquests, including the Judge's report on why new inquests are necessary and what should be included, I get the impression that the pen portraits have been deemed advisable for the following reasons:

 

a) there has been much in the press since the disaster, as part of a wider cover-up, to put blame for the disaster at the doorstep of the fans and this process included maligning the fans. Obviously, any adults around at the time will have seen these reports in the press. The judge wants this case to be viewed with fresh eyes, so he wishes the jury to be more informed about what kind of people the victims were. The families have been used to defending the name of their loved ones who are no longer here for the last 25 years, and this is their opportunity to publically acquaint interested parties with each victim by the people who knew them best. I perceive this as putting the victims as individuals and their families more at the heart of the process this time, which I believe is right and has to be welcomed.

 

b) the inquests in Sheffield were deemed by some as rather 'impersonal' if not 'insensitive' to the victims and families and victims were often grouped together for purposes, including the contested 3:15 cut off point, where in fact some victims died after this time, so this is an attempt to balance that now, so the jury can see that these victims are 'individuals' and if they all had separate inquests, instead of being lumped together then the jury would know each individual victim better but as, for obvious logistic purposes, the inquests are being held 'collectively' still in this manner, then it is important that each case is looked at individually as each individual cause of death is established as far as possible. I welcome this move that I perceive as being a more modern and revised approach which has become increasingly present in recent years in many traditionally very formal processes where parties 'had a process done to them' being replaced with a process that respects the feelings and welfare/mental health of the victims' loved ones and they have more 'ownership' of the process, a more 'customer-centred' approach, for want of a better explanation.

 

c) to make matters of identification easier for the jury. Issuing photographs of the victims, and names and ages only makes it more difficult for the jurors to identify individuals and separate them, and can lead to confusion in the minds of the jurors. Having these pen portraits, helps the juror recognise individuals, rather than for instance, the young man with dark hair and a glint in his eye on the photo (which could in fact relate to several photos) they might remember and more easily distinguish and to use the judge's term 'place' an individual by remembering him as the young man who was studying computer sciences at Leicester University, or the female senior radiographer, or whatever. Hopefully, in each case there will be a piece of information that resononates with each individual juror, so that they may more easily distinguish one victim from another in the process. This has to be welcomed as the jury face a monumental and unprecedented task.

 

I have read and appreciate your post but that doe`s still not answer my question.their names and photos,yes,their lifestyle and aspirations,no.

[ianmatt]

Very interesting but to my knowledge and I have followed this closely, nobody has pointed any blame, or accused of hooliganism any of those poor people who lost their life.

 

What was the point of family members describing the people who died. What has that got to do with the reasons for their deaths.

 

Are you Scouse, out of interest.

[999tigger]

[/b]

 

But the full truth will not come out as too the deaths of the spectators,only the truth as the relatives see it.They are only blaming the police when that is not the whole truth.How many of the local residents or other supporters have been interviewed?

 

Do you understand that this is an Inquest? Do you know what the function of an Inquest is?

 

The pen portraits are being allowed to give an identity to the jury of each of the victims. They can bear this in mind when considering other evidence which might suggest X Y or Z and consider whether the two are consistent. It will aslo help the jury on deciding which verdict to reach. Finally as it's seen the relaives were unfairly treated from the original inquest its an opportunuty for them to have their say at the beginning of the proceedings. its importnat that when all this is over it isnt opened up again and everyone can move on. Jusice needs to be done and at this stage it means the new Inquest must avoid the defects of the one held in 1991.