UK: Hillsborough inquiry concludes the 96 fans were unlawfully killed


#1

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36138337


#2

Can someone explain what this particular trial was about? I mean none of the jury’s conclusions are new and have been the facts on the ground for decades now. Why this trial now 27 years after the fact?


#3

It wasn’t a trial, it was a second inquest to establish the reasons for the deaths of the 96 people. Over the years since this terrible tragedy happened, there have been many calls from the relatives of those who died for a full investigation, which took place in 2012 when an Independent Panel questioned and overturned the findings of the original inquest. That Panel recommended that a second inquest should take place.

This second inquest has ruled that the people who died were unlawfully killed, rather than victims of accidental death. This means that certain individuals or organisations may now be called to account under the law.

For the families, it is vindication that those who died were not responsible for what happened to them, despite what has been said in the past by people in authority and the press.


#4

Thank God for this. I’m not English or British, but I have been aware for ages now about *Justice For The 96 *campaigns. It’s wonderful that families perhaps have been given a bit of closure, and my prayers go out to them, and also for the souls of the departed.


#5

:thumbsup:


#6

Look. I know nothing about this other than this article. But it seems a strange thing to rule deaths in a stamped unlawful. I mean what scenario would ever have found them lawful anyway?

But still. I don’t get why this is even possible for organizers to foresee how out of control people can get. I mean I assume this stadium was used before without this thing happening?

Well I guess it’s good if they can learn from it. But I don’t think this should open some kind of door where people can start getting dragged into lawsuits. Because all they wanted to do was put on a spectacle. They couldn’t have known people would act like they did. How could they have known that?

I don’t know.

Peace.

-Trident


#7

I don’t think the distinction is between unlawful and “lawful” deaths; rather, it is between accidental and [unlawfully] intentional.


#8

Thanks. I guess that makes sense. But these obviously weren’t intentional either. So I guess I still don’t understand some part of this.


#9

Hi,

Here are a few more news links they will help to give a bit of the background to this and help to explain why these verdicts have been reached.

bbc.co.uk/timelines/zpdc7hv This is a summary of what happened during and after the Hillsborough disaster, including the police altering statements and newspaper reporting

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19545126 This is a detailed account of what happened on the day.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767 This is an analysis of mistakes made on the day of the disaster and help to explain why the verdicts of unlawful killing were reached.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35383110 More info about the inquests.

If you decide to have a look at some of these links, it’s a bit of reading! But especially for non-UK readers it will help to explain all this for people who have never heard about this before.

Mark


#10

Thanks, Mark. That should help a lot.


#11

This has been such an on-going news story over the last 27 years in the UK that it’s easy to forget that e.g. people in the US may have little awareness of this. Since the verdict was announced late yesterday morning, this has been the big, main news story covered on our news channels, it was pretty much the only news item covered for most of yesterday afternoon into the evening. I’m writing this at 8:20pm UK time, just been watching the news and the first item was the prayer vigil being held in Liverpool this evening, the suspension a of senior police officer due to this and the possibility that eventually there could be criminal prosecutions.


#12

I had forgotten – we were living in the UK when this happened.


#13

Thanks for that. A bit of a sad read there though.


#14

Apart from what has been mentioned on the thread as reported in the media, I’ve heard so much more sadness about it all recently, which included listening to some of those who witnessed the terrible tragedy and those who provided assistance in the aftermath.

One of those I heard interviewed was an Anglican Bishop who had been involved with other clergy in administering spiritual support to relatives of the deceased. He mentioned that many of the deceased were Roman Catholic, and that due to the Sheffield diocese not having enough Catholic priests, the assistance of Anglican clergy was required.

Since hearing that I’ve been wondering how the church is instructed to deal with major disasters involving so many injured people and mortalities, and whether guidelines are issued to priests. Does any one know?


#15

It was not a stampede and the people were not out of control. That’s the whole point. Those stories were determined to be lies told to cover up the real cause of the deaths - criminal negligence on the part of the police who directed the crowd into a tunnel that ended in metal cages where the people who could not move forward and were crushed to death. There was no stampede, no out of control crowd - just people going where the police told them to go and dying as a result.


#16

This.

A significant aspect of the incident were the stories circulated about the Liverpool fans at the time, which many/most non-UK people won’t be aware of, stories we now know not to be true. Suggestions that the Liverpool fans were drunk and this contributed to/caused the tragedy, that they obstructed the emergency services, that they were seen stealing from the dead, and so on. As this poster says, these stories made it look as though the fans were responsible for the deaths but this is now known not to be the case.

Can someone explain what this particular trial was about? I mean none of the jury’s conclusions are new and have been the facts on the ground for decades now. Why this trial now 27 years after the fact?

Please see my comment above - the truth was not universally acknowledged and accepted at the time. The relatives of those who died, and other Liverpool fans, always maintained that the fans weren’t responsible for this tragedy, and have fought for the last 27 years to clear the reputations of the fans (including their dead relatives).


#17

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.