Hillsborough Suspect Files Passed To Crown Prosecution Service

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38582111

The ( Inquest ) jury found the match commander, Ch Supt David Duckenfield, responsible for manslaughter by gross negligence. This was nearly a year ago.

So why hasn't he been arrested ?

[ToraToraTora]

when are they going to round up all those without tickets?

[mikey4444]

They weren't found guilty in the (very long ) Inquest last year TTT. Duckenfield was.

Stick to this thread, not one that you might like to have posted.

[jim360]

Perhaps around about the same time you stop blaming those people?

[mikey4444]

TTT has a history of pouring scorn on the verdict of the Hillsborough Inquests, so he has some form here.

[ToraToraTora]

quiet over here isn't it!

[andy-hughes]

It may well be after the deliberations, that no prosecutions are forthcoming.

The potential arestees will see this, and no doubt tell people, that it amounts to exoneration.

It does not.

The CPS will only embark on the time and expense of prosecutions if they believe there is a favourable chance of obtaining convictions. This is what is covered by the phrase 'In the public interest'.

So, to steo outside the legalese they will use, lack of prosecutions does not mean 'You are not guilty', it means 'We know you are guilty, but we don't think we have a strong enough case to prove it'.

[agchristie]

Andy, yes, it's all about the strength of the evidence. Just because there is insufficient evidence it does not of course mean that the person did not commit the original offence.

If only there was convincing proof on a par with, say, DNA evidence.

[mikey4444]

Andy.....as far as I understand it, Duckenfield and almost all the Police that gave statements to the original Inquests have been shown to be lying.....

ie they committed perjury, so I am at a loss to think why they should not be prosecuted ?

Perhaps NJ can give some guidance here.