No, that is not my point. They went with what was presented in court just as the jury in the OJ SImpson murder trial did and came back with an acquittal based on the admissable evidence. Duckenfield and his legal team has presented evidence that some in the jury believed and others didn't. He will be tried again. Based on all I have read and heard, which is considerable, my opinion of the actions or inactions taken by David Duckenfield remains constant. He is materially responsible for the events at Hillsborough Football Ground on that dark April day in 1989. He is not by any means the only one responsible by any means. He is also not responsible for the cover-up. His is a sad story. He was never meant to be in that position but a series of unrelated events caused him to be there. Yet, there he was and with a full view of the Leppings Lane shelf terrace. He is, to be sure, a broken man, done in by his own failings and by those above him in the South Yorkshire Constabulary who allowed their biases concerning football supporters to influence their professionalism and then their innate sense of self-preservation to create an intolerable situation. By no means do I want Duckenfield to become the Hillsborough scapegoat. HE should answer solely for what he did and didn't do on the day. Others must answer for the cover-up, how the ground was staffed and indeed chosen for that match.

As for the so-called "50,000 ticketless fans" mentioned in an earlier post, that has been disproven by video evidence released in the Independent Commission (Bishop of Liverpool et.al.) report and corroborated by the Warrington Inquest. When the exit gate was opened on Duckenfield's orders, fans were clearly shown waving their tickets at the camera. If there were ticketless people at the match the objective evidence shows they were not a factor in the disaster, It was just another canard foisted upon us by those in the establishment to obstruct justice.

Your analysis betrays a basic lack of understanding of the Simpson case. I recommend you read the book “Outrage” by Vincent Bugliosi. His is a veteran prosecutor’s take on what happened and my points are based on his. In his view, the prosecution made many fundamental errors in presenting its case and the jury was abused by the court. He disagrees with the verdict but understands how it came about. For reference, Bugliosi successfully prosecuted Charles Manson for the Tate-LaBianca murders and had him sentenced to death which was commuted when the Supreme Court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in the early 1970s. Neat trick considering Manson was not present at either murder scene.

I believe the charge against Duckenfield was something along the lines of criminal negligence so intent is not a relevant issue. These charges stem from the findings of the Warrington Inquest where he gave evidence.

The parallel between Simpson & Duckenfield is the juries. One came back with a declarative verdict, the other did not. Both had to wrestle with conflicting evidence. Perhaps the CPS needs to evaluate its performance.

Your analysis betrays a basic lack of understanding of the Simpson case. I recommend you read the book “Outrage” by Vincent Bugliosi. His is a veteran prosecutor’s take on what happened and my points are based on his. In his view, the prosecution made many fundamental errors in presenting its case and the jury was abused by the court. He disagrees with the verdict but understands how it came about. For reference, Bugliosi successfully prosecuted Charles Manson for the Tate-LaBianca murders and had him sentenced to death which was commuted when the Supreme Court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in the early 1970s. Neat trick considering Manson was not present at either murder scene.

I believe the charge against Duckenfield was something along the lines of criminal negligence so intent is not a relevant issue. These charges stem from the findings of the Warrington Inquest where he gave evidence.

The parallel between Simpson & Duckenfield is the juries. One came back with a declarative verdict, the other did not. Both had to wrestle with conflicting evidence. Perhaps the CPS needs to evaluate its performance.

Bugliosi was a brilliant man and he was very critical of that jury. Anyone who had seriously read and watched him over Simpson knew that he understood that race was a significant reason Simpson got off.

He claimed that he could have overcome this bias. I don't believe he could personally. As long as the defence provided some 'out' for the jury.....the jury were going to take it.....Besides the bias and the general dimness these people had to go back to their communities after and they knew the risks.

However Bugliosi liked to present himself as the master lawyer and a 'look how smart I am' angle was a big part of his approach to media.

But I don't mind arrogance when someone can back it up....and he could.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Apr 2019 1.14pm)

Your analysis of Bugliosi is essentially correct. He had the ability to back up his claims. I believe he would have obtained a conviction by managing the testimony & evidence better. Marcia Clark was not supposed to be lead prosecutor. Someone named Hodgeman was supposed to but had to bow out. I may have the name wrong. Christopher Darden has an absolote ‘mare. He got psyched out by the defense team, particularly Cochran & Scheck. While Bugliosi rightly cites as a factor he also shows both the prosecution & the judge made considerable errors. Among the legal scholars supporting Bugliosi’s arguments is Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School.

Bugliosi died a few years ago. Among his meant legal accomplishments was winning a moot court trial prosecuting Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of John F Kennedy & Officer J.D. Tippett that was held in London.

Thirty years of trying to find someone else to hang all this blame on and absolve the true cause of this disaster.

Duckenfield (or ANY other poor soul for that matter) was only put in that position because of the behaviour and actions of ticketless Liverpool (so called) supporters!

And they still do this to this day, as I’ve personally witnessed at both Chelsea and Fulham in recent years!

Their supporters are, at times, an utter disgrace. To on one hand give it the big ‘un over Hillsborough and yet still turn up consistently without tickets and try and force their way in...incredible! Them, of all people.

***Just check out the ejections from the new Wembley for games involving either Everton or Liverpool and compare these with ANY other Wembley fixture!***

These are for ticketless individuals who have gained unauthorised access to the stadium. I saw one Liverpool supporter get ejected 3 times in the same game!!! I mean fair play to him for his persistence but seriously?!!!

They are just pathetic and Duckenfield will, quite rightly, be acquitted.

The innocent victims are just that, innocent people who had acquired legitimate tickets and were inside the stadium in good time. Tragically killed by their own, who did neither.