Blooming Personalities C/D 30Th November
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Duckinfield Jury Unable To Agree On Verdict
49 Answers
https:/
Not surprised. The CPS have asked for a retrial. Hopefully they won’t succeed, to pursue this serves nobody.
Not surprised. The CPS have asked for a retrial. Hopefully they won’t succeed, to pursue this serves nobody.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//we will never know - the lying started early//
We do know PP from the inquest.
''Marshall told the inquest that Duckenfield’s policy on delaying kick-off was that he would do so if there had been “fog on the Pennines or a serious accident on the motorway” that had delayed “very, very large numbers of people”.
So,he was prepared to delay the start of the match if overcrowding occurred BUT only if it resulted from a serious motorway accident.Absurd in my view.
We do know PP from the inquest.
''Marshall told the inquest that Duckenfield’s policy on delaying kick-off was that he would do so if there had been “fog on the Pennines or a serious accident on the motorway” that had delayed “very, very large numbers of people”.
So,he was prepared to delay the start of the match if overcrowding occurred BUT only if it resulted from a serious motorway accident.Absurd in my view.
Chilldoubt - I've often thought that. The actions of the Liverpool fans in Heysel directly led to the death of 30 or so Juventus fans, and yet Liverpool, whilst being vociferously vocal about Hillsborough, have always been remarkably silent about Heysel.
I fully accept the relatives of the fans who died and the fans who survived are going through and went through something truly horrendous - that is a given - but the prosecution of Duckenfield 30 years after the event leaves me very uneasy. It strikes me the CPS has brought this case to sate those who feel they are warranted justice rather than in the actual interest of justice.
I fully accept the relatives of the fans who died and the fans who survived are going through and went through something truly horrendous - that is a given - but the prosecution of Duckenfield 30 years after the event leaves me very uneasy. It strikes me the CPS has brought this case to sate those who feel they are warranted justice rather than in the actual interest of justice.
DD - many a person has been successfully convicted many many years after an event.If there is deemed to be a case to answer then so be it.The CPS will not base a decision to prosecute to 'sate justice'.
It is often said that the passage of time prevents a fair trial.I don't subscribe to this view.It is often said that after 40 years Soldier 'F' should not be prosecuted either following Bloody Sunday as he cannot face a fair trial but,to me,that is more about IRA terrorists walking free.
As NJ has said the jury was split and there is no reason to suggest it was an unfair trial.
It is often said that the passage of time prevents a fair trial.I don't subscribe to this view.It is often said that after 40 years Soldier 'F' should not be prosecuted either following Bloody Sunday as he cannot face a fair trial but,to me,that is more about IRA terrorists walking free.
As NJ has said the jury was split and there is no reason to suggest it was an unfair trial.
The Heysel Stadium was in decay and had been condemned a few years before hosting a final that should never have occurred there.
Admittedly,the response from Liverpool was for many years muted but not so since 2000 where a memorial has taken place every year since.There is a plaque at Anfield and it's worth recalling that 14 of the 26 Liverpool fans who stood trial for Heysel offences were convicted.
The response from Italy is even more muted.In Turin,home of Juventus,the club's website gives Heysel barely a mention.
Admittedly,the response from Liverpool was for many years muted but not so since 2000 where a memorial has taken place every year since.There is a plaque at Anfield and it's worth recalling that 14 of the 26 Liverpool fans who stood trial for Heysel offences were convicted.
The response from Italy is even more muted.In Turin,home of Juventus,the club's website gives Heysel barely a mention.
A few of us seem to be missing the point somewhat here.
The CPS has a two-part test which must be passed before they initiate a prosecution. Firstly there must be sufficient evidence to support a reasonable chance (not the certainty) of a conviction. Secondly the prosecution must be “in the public interest”. Mr Duckenfield’s case obviously passed both parts of that test.
Having read a little more about the trial (there is necessarily little to be had in case there is a second trial) it seems it concentrated mainly on the failure of the defendant to properly exercise his “duty of care” towards those involved. Mr Duckenfield did not give evidence himself and his defence lasted just over an hour – consisting of written statements (which means they were uncontested by the prosecution). This means almost the entire three months that the trial lasted was taken up by the prosecution. It has been suggested that members of the jury were not as well informed in the matter as perhaps some of us on here might be:
NJ: //They learned more about the event than we would ever know...//
agchristie: //...and had you been sat on the jury you might reverse your opinion NJ.//
With the greatest respect I fail to see how any of us on here would know more than the jury. Three months of listening to evidence is a long time and hats must be taken off to those jurors for their indulgence. To suggest any of us are somehow better informed than them is simply laughable.
Manslaughter by Gross Negligence is a notoriously difficult prosecution to secure and for very good reason. Many people sometimes behave negligently. But it’s a big leap to convert that negligence into the commission of a serious criminal offence (one which carries a maximum of Life imprisonment). There have been a number of high profile acquittals and verdicts quashed in the Appeal Court. I did not arrive at my conclusion in a hurried or emotional way. This article makes interesting reading. I read it when I first learned of Mr Duckenfield’s prosecution and it drew me to my conclusion that the case would not succeed. It may help understand the difficulties prosecutors face with the charge:
https:/
An important passage is this:
//Tragic but unintended deaths are the most difficult for criminal justice to deal with. In a cold-blooded murder, there is no question that blame should be attributed and punishment meted out. However, gross negligence manslaughter involves a spectrum of fault and blame, which must be kept separate from the suffering of the victims.//
Mr Duckenfield received a fair trial. I do not believe that the passage of time prejudiced that trial in either direction. But I do think the passage of time should cause the CPS to think again before they initiate fresh proceedings. There is nearly always someone to blame for failings that cause a tragedy like this. But those to blame do not automatically become criminals.
The CPS has a two-part test which must be passed before they initiate a prosecution. Firstly there must be sufficient evidence to support a reasonable chance (not the certainty) of a conviction. Secondly the prosecution must be “in the public interest”. Mr Duckenfield’s case obviously passed both parts of that test.
Having read a little more about the trial (there is necessarily little to be had in case there is a second trial) it seems it concentrated mainly on the failure of the defendant to properly exercise his “duty of care” towards those involved. Mr Duckenfield did not give evidence himself and his defence lasted just over an hour – consisting of written statements (which means they were uncontested by the prosecution). This means almost the entire three months that the trial lasted was taken up by the prosecution. It has been suggested that members of the jury were not as well informed in the matter as perhaps some of us on here might be:
NJ: //They learned more about the event than we would ever know...//
agchristie: //...and had you been sat on the jury you might reverse your opinion NJ.//
With the greatest respect I fail to see how any of us on here would know more than the jury. Three months of listening to evidence is a long time and hats must be taken off to those jurors for their indulgence. To suggest any of us are somehow better informed than them is simply laughable.
Manslaughter by Gross Negligence is a notoriously difficult prosecution to secure and for very good reason. Many people sometimes behave negligently. But it’s a big leap to convert that negligence into the commission of a serious criminal offence (one which carries a maximum of Life imprisonment). There have been a number of high profile acquittals and verdicts quashed in the Appeal Court. I did not arrive at my conclusion in a hurried or emotional way. This article makes interesting reading. I read it when I first learned of Mr Duckenfield’s prosecution and it drew me to my conclusion that the case would not succeed. It may help understand the difficulties prosecutors face with the charge:
https:/
An important passage is this:
//Tragic but unintended deaths are the most difficult for criminal justice to deal with. In a cold-blooded murder, there is no question that blame should be attributed and punishment meted out. However, gross negligence manslaughter involves a spectrum of fault and blame, which must be kept separate from the suffering of the victims.//
Mr Duckenfield received a fair trial. I do not believe that the passage of time prejudiced that trial in either direction. But I do think the passage of time should cause the CPS to think again before they initiate fresh proceedings. There is nearly always someone to blame for failings that cause a tragedy like this. But those to blame do not automatically become criminals.
NJ,thanks for clarifying the role of the CPS.
With regard to 'knowing more than the jury',I entirely agree.I have often commented that nobody is privy to what is heard in the courtroom and so when you made your comment yesterday about Mr Duckenfield not likely to be convicted,I stated that if you were on the jury you may have reached a different conclusion.
I now see that your view was based on another article that helped to form your conclusion.
The prosecution certainly did have the lion's share of the time and the jury deliberated for a long time so I agree,it was a fair trial.
With regard to 'knowing more than the jury',I entirely agree.I have often commented that nobody is privy to what is heard in the courtroom and so when you made your comment yesterday about Mr Duckenfield not likely to be convicted,I stated that if you were on the jury you may have reached a different conclusion.
I now see that your view was based on another article that helped to form your conclusion.
The prosecution certainly did have the lion's share of the time and the jury deliberated for a long time so I agree,it was a fair trial.
//But I do think the passage of time should cause the CPS to think again before they initiate fresh proceedings//
Is it not a straightforward matter of putting it to another 12 people who may be able to reach a majority/unanimous verdict?
Just curious and do you think the passage of time was a significant factor in this case?
Is it not a straightforward matter of putting it to another 12 people who may be able to reach a majority/unanimous verdict?
Just curious and do you think the passage of time was a significant factor in this case?
From a report when Liverpool played Juve for the first time since Heysel:
Anfield's chief executive Rick Parry, speaking before a match between supporters at Liverpool's academy, struck the tone for the day. "We are all sorry about what happened that night. We very much regret what happened. I hope we can all forgive and forget and move on.”
When it suits, eh?
https:/
Anfield's chief executive Rick Parry, speaking before a match between supporters at Liverpool's academy, struck the tone for the day. "We are all sorry about what happened that night. We very much regret what happened. I hope we can all forgive and forget and move on.”
When it suits, eh?
https:/
Fans spilled onto the pitch at the same end in a semi-final in the early 80's due to overcrowding resulting in broken limbs and Andy Burnham was also in the same end in a semi in '88.He stated that the crushing was very troubling.
The warning signs were there.In '89,certain police officers were not positioned at key strategic points as they were in '88.
So much to consider and I suspect the jurors had boxes of paracetamols to hand...
The warning signs were there.In '89,certain police officers were not positioned at key strategic points as they were in '88.
So much to consider and I suspect the jurors had boxes of paracetamols to hand...
// The actions of the Liverpool fans led to the death of 30 Juventus fans, and yet Liverpool, have always been remarkably silent about Heysel. //
yeah yeah I know this is AB - - - BUT
I fail to see the logic of saying to Hillsborough relatives - "other scousers do dat at heysel firty y ago so why you talk?"
My dear late father on the other hand does remember in the forties an unrepentant German saying to one of the liberated untermensch ( subhumans(*)) - you keep quiet during the war we woud have made you into a bar of soap !
and I cant say I am reassured when someone says
"ah yes the great and good - they really do know far far more about it than you do so you must trust to their judgement - that is after all why they are great and good and you are one of the ruled...."
a lot of them time I just dont get it ( because I am not one of the Great and Good see?)
yeah yeah I know this is AB - - - BUT
I fail to see the logic of saying to Hillsborough relatives - "other scousers do dat at heysel firty y ago so why you talk?"
My dear late father on the other hand does remember in the forties an unrepentant German saying to one of the liberated untermensch ( subhumans(*)) - you keep quiet during the war we woud have made you into a bar of soap !
and I cant say I am reassured when someone says
"ah yes the great and good - they really do know far far more about it than you do so you must trust to their judgement - that is after all why they are great and good and you are one of the ruled...."
a lot of them time I just dont get it ( because I am not one of the Great and Good see?)
Many of us would have been more informed generally about what happened at Hillsborough and previous issues at that ground but the jury only have to consider what is put before them and apply their interpretation of same to the test being applied.
There is no doubt that Mr Duckenfield made some calamitous decisions and omissions,some of which he has omitted but if it doesn't meet the convicting threshold then so be it.
Easy to get carried away with the emotional side of the matter and the long fight for justice but this shouldn't come at any cost.
There is no doubt that Mr Duckenfield made some calamitous decisions and omissions,some of which he has omitted but if it doesn't meet the convicting threshold then so be it.
Easy to get carried away with the emotional side of the matter and the long fight for justice but this shouldn't come at any cost.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank46 mins ago
ChatterBank55 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.