Is A Re-Trial The Correct Decision?

[agchristie]

Who thinks that another jury will also not be able to agree a verdict?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-48756722

[ToraToraTora]

the circus continues, they won't be happy until he or someone is HDQd. They should go after the true cause of the disaster instead of trying to pin this on a copper just trying to do a job on the day. Impossible to prove anyway.

[youngmafbog]

This is getting really ridiculous now. A clear witch hunt.

Still, in this age of vote until the right answer is given ....

[dannyk13]

If he is eventually found guilty it would be a travesty of justice.

[ToraToraTora]

just fill the jury with the families of the victims and be done with it, then we can get on with whatever cruel and unusual punishment they crave and put this to bed, it's getting very silly now.

[Baldric]

Yeah, why not, just keep going until you get the Verdict you want.

[ToraToraTora]

the whole case is flawed anyway they'll have to show: "The defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment." - errors were made but I don't think this burden is satisfied.

[Gladeian]

And..have the re-trial heard away from Preston which is too close to Liverpool and all the possible prejudice of the jurors. I really dont think a re-trial is called for but if it does have to happen send it to the Central Criminal Court in London.

[hereIam]

Poor man, it is most definitely a witch hunt.

[spathiphyllum]

HereIAm... The reason for that is because 96 people died, and someone was responsible.

[sanmac]

And how are you going to determine which of the fans were responsible?

[spathiphyllum]

You must have bumped your head.

I'm not

A jury will.

[sanmac]

Huh?

[hereIam]

People die all the time spath in all sorts of awful ways, I really don't know why this particular tragedy keeps getting brought up time and time again! I repeat, a witch hunt ..

[agchristie]

Despite this whole business being very protracted, I was surprised at the latest judgment.

I just cannot see a jury being able to return a 'guilty' verdict wherever the retrial is heard.

Mr Duckenfield was certainly remiss in several ways executing his duties as Match Commander on the day but,in my view, I find it extremely difficult to prove his guilt when applying the necessary tests where the threshold is high...

[david small]

A scapegoat rarely escapes.

[pixie374]

The most he is guilty of is being incompetent at his job. The responsibility is with those adults that invaded without tickets. How are they all going to be identified?
It does look as though they want someone to be punished, no matter how fair.

[New Judge]

//HereIAm... The reason for that is because 96 people died, and someone was responsible.//

Why? (Unless you consider that all deaths are the responsibility of "someone").

[agchristie]

I think that is the problem here.

Who is to blame? Is the man on trial singularly to blame and if he is, does it meet the threshold of the offences he is charged with?

[goodgoalie]

I've asked before on AB, but can't be bothered to trawl through all my posts to find it, so I'll ask again.
Did all the people who rushed through the wrongly-opened gates, as can be seen in the CCTV images, and causing the fatal crush, have tickets for that part of the ground? Indeed, did they have tickets for the match at all?
Surely they are the most culpable in this tragedy, and I see little point in continuing to go after Duckenfield until the 'right' verdict is returned.

[Cloverjo]

Unless there’s significant new evidence against him I can’t see how a retrial is going to help anyone.

I don’t think it would be a fair trial. Too much has been reported and discussed over the years. People seem to be of the opinion it was all the police’s fault or all the football fans’ fault and they’re unlikely to change their minds.