Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hillsborough Trial

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Hillsborough Trial

    The trial starts today of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell over the Hillsborough disaster. The Liverpool Echo is providing live updates from the court room. Please be careful what you say on this thread as anything said online could compromise the trial and after 29 years we don't want the case to collapse due to what's been said here or anywhere else on the internet. The link to the trial is here:

    Two men charged with offences linked to the Hillsborough tragedy due to start today

    #2
    The jury in the Hillsborough trial have been told by the judge he will accept a majority decision but not less than 10-2

    Ninety-six people were killed in the disaster at the FA Cup semi-final in Sheffield in 1989.

    Comment


      #3
      I am still really not able to say anything I want to say, not until it's over.

      Comment


        #4
        Is there a possibility this could go to a retrial?

        Comment


          #5
          If the judge is directing that he can accept a majority decision, then yes, there is clearly a chance of a hung jury. Judges don't give such instructions without cause and over a day of deliberations has passed since he allowed this, and still no verdicts.
          Last edited by Janik; 02-04-2019, 17:04.

          Comment


            #6
            If the jury are unable to return a verdict then what happens next? Where there be a retrial, or will that be it? Given that Duckenfield has already been tried once, will he be tried yet again?

            Comment


              #7
              Breaking news:

              Jury fail to agree a decision on Duckenfield

              Graham Mackerell of Sheffeild Wednesday found guilty of breaching his safety duty

              The jury has now been discharged
              Duckenfield, 74, denied the gross negligence manslaughter of 95 Liverpool fans who died in the disaster at the FA Cup semi-final on April 15 1989
              Last edited by Paul S; 03-04-2019, 11:32.

              Comment


                #8
                Reporting restrictions are still in place and only the verdicts may be reported. This is because the prosecution are to seek a re-trial of David Duckenfield.
                Last edited by Paul S; 03-04-2019, 11:41.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Solid report from David Conn

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The CPS had to be moreorless forced into prosecuting this, so I was concerned that they would try and argue that they couldn't present a more convincing case than they just have so doing it all again would be a waste of money. Probably not to the point of being brazen enough to say 'not in the public interest' but trying to get to the same point in other words. But no, they appear to understand that this is something they have to pursue.
                    The defence will fight a retrial happening tooth-and-nail, of course.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      It wouldn't be the first time that prosecutors only began to believe in a case after they had been dragged kicking and screaming to bring it.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Cunts.

                        In which case the club could not be charged because that company exists only on paper, but an insurance policy it took out could still pay for the legal representation to contest the club or Mackrell being held liable for the disaster.
                        Wednesday’s then safety officer, Graham Mackrell, has been convicted over the disaster but the club, to the families’ despair, is immune to prosecution

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by NHH View Post
                          Cunts.


                          eh?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Where did the quote go?


                            How, if they're a continuation of the previous enterprise, sold on to the next management, not regarded as a continuation of said enterprise?


                            Stands in the way of all logic surely?


                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by NHH View Post
                              Cunts.


                              And Sheffield City Council for licencing what was demonstrably a death trap to any right thinking individual

                              And the FA for allowing said death trap in the eyes of any right thinking individual being used as a venue.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Guy Profumo View Post
                                Where did the quote go?
                                The new board doesn't appear to allow hierarchical quotes, just first order ones.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Yeah, that's a bit annoying at times.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    That Conn story is also a grim testimony to how the financial restructuring of English football clubs in the 1990s - motivated solely by greed and short-term recklessness - can reach its tentacles back into the tragedies of the past. Fucking disgusting.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      FWIW (and I know neither I nor any other Wednesday fan is being asked to give an opinion, but somehow I feel like I need to) I definitely think the club should be charged. And take whatever punishment might come about as a result of that charge, even if that was being wound up.

                                      It was noted, I think in Conn's book, that Mackrell didn't resign over the Hillsborough disaster, but then a few years later after he'd moved to West Ham he did resign over that club fielding an ineligible player and subsequently being kicked out of the League Cup.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Janik View Post
                                        The new board doesn't appear to allow hierarchical quotes, just first order ones.
                                        Sorry for my ignorance, but what are hierarchical quotes?

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by Sporting View Post

                                          Sorry for my ignorance, but what are hierarchical quotes?
                                          I am quoting your post here, but the post that you were quoting does not appear in my quote. If you see what i mean.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by ad hoc View Post

                                            I am quoting your post here, but the post that you were quoting does not appear in my quote. If you see what i mean.
                                            Yes.

                                            Comment

                                            Working...
                                            X