Hillsborough probe 'to be UK's biggest into police conduct'

[lastlid]

"The biggest ever independent investigation into police wrongdoing is to be carried out following a damning report into the Hillsborough disaster.

The IPCC police watchdog and director of public prosecutions have announced they will both launch inquiries into possible crimes committed by police.

The IPCC said both serving and former officers would be investigated over the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans in 1989.

The Hillsborough Family Support Group said it was "too good to be true".

The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer will review evidence relating to how the 96 fans died, which could lead to charges of manslaughter through gross negligence.

Meanwhile, the IPCC said it would look at whether there was a criminal cover-up by South Yorkshire Police of failings by the force.

A "large number" of current and former officers now face investigation over claims made in a report on the Hillsborough disaster, the IPCC said."

Possibility of facing criminal charges.....


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19922092

[johncar54]

I confess that I have not read the full report in this case but from TV film it appears that the fans pushing forward were the direct cause of the fatalities. Had they not done so, no one would have been injured or killed.

That statements were changed, in itself, does not prove any criminality.

Statements which are to be used in criminal cases may only include admissible evidence.

It is a fact that even police officers, many of them, do not understand what evidence is admissible and thus, in many cases inadmissible evidence is normally edited from statements before they are submitted.

[lastlid]

I guess we will hear in the fullness of time....

[KeithD]

..... from TV film it appears that the fans pushing forward were the direct cause of the fatalities. Had they not done so, no one would have been injured or killed.

That's what happens wherever you have bad organisation and those in charge keep funneling people into an already crowded area. We see it time & time again in sport, concerts, etc .... it happened last year in Germany.

Individual People going to an event and being herded into an area by the authorities is not the inviduals fault.

[johncar54]

Individual People going to an event and being herded into an area by the authorities is not the individuals fault.

But people are not brainless cattle. If one enters a room which is full one does not keep pushing until they can get in.

Is anyone saying that in this case the 'authorities' saw what was happening and continued to physically push more people in ?

[KeithD]

[QUOTE=johncar54;395093]
But people are not brainless cattle. If one enters a room which is full one does not keep pushing until they can get in.[QUOTE]

As individuals they are not, but en masse they are and that is why we have people in charge of monitioring and directing them. Plus no human being on the planet, apart from the police, could see what was happening on the otherside of the tunnel they were all being herded down, and I'm pretty sure if those that died and got injured could have just turned back and walked out they would have but the police opened the gates and let in a mass crowd being pushed forward from the back by the police.

John, you're starting to sound like you worked for the Yorkshire police

[lastlid]

That statements were changed, in itself, does not prove any criminality.

This bit bothers me. Phrases and expressions like "perverting the course of justice" spring to mind.

[johncar54]

Removing inadmissible passages from a statement, does not amount to any offence.

I did it practically every day when I was supervising reports for submission to Solicitors Dept New Scotland Yard, or before serving papers on the defence.

An example.
If an officer says in a statement, "I was told that Mr Smith stole the car." Unless it was in the presence and hearing of Mr Smith, it is hearsay and not admissible in a case against Mr Smith. Thus it must be excluded.

Similarity, if an officer said, "I knew Mr Smith had stolen cars before." inadmissible and must be excluded.

[lastlid]

I guess that if the intent was there to pervert the course of justice and this can be proven, then criminality could be proven. I presume this will all come out in due course.

[johncar54]

I guess that if the intent was there to pervert the course of justice and this can be proven,

Not sure how that relates to this post.

As I said, editing inadmissible parts from a statement, does not amount to an offence. Any offence nor any discipline regulation. On the contrary, not doing so, if the statement is to be submitted in evidence, would amount to incompetence.

From looking at the TV footage, it seems pretty clear that those who were pushing caused the deaths and injuries. Maybe some evidence will now come to light to support a prosecution of those.

Or maybe this is all about the compensation culture.

Blame someone else, who has money (albeit public money, yours and my taxes) and make a claim 'no win no fee'

[KeithD]

Removing inadmissible passages from a statement, does not amount to any offence.

But this evidence was supposed to have been admitted as evidence. They purposely removed it so that all the enquiries came to the wrong conclusion. That to anyone on the street is perverting the course of justice as this evidence was given under oath.

[johncar54]

But this evidence was supposed to have been admitted as evidence. They purposely removed it so that all the enquiries came to the wrong conclusion.

How do you know what was removed ?

[KeithD]

All the documents have been published online with the parts removed by the police included: http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/

[KeithD]

This link goes directly to amended documents: http://hillsborough.independent.gov....s2-p2-c11.html

[johncar54]

I had a look at the referenced material, but I do not see what was excluded from the original statements. I did see a lot of information, hearsay, opinion, etc. which would appear be inadmissible in a prosecution. Although may have been useful to a person carrying out a review of what happened.

What I have seen does not persuade me to alter what I have posted.

[lastlid]

I had a look at the referenced material, but I do not see what was excluded from the original statements. I did see a lot of information, hearsay, opinion, etc. which would appear be inadmissible in a prosecution. Although may have been useful to a person carrying out a review of what happened.

What I have seen does not persuade me to alter what I have posted.

There appears to be material out there John, which came up at the Taylor Report, demonstrating what was originally written. Don't forget some of those who wrote the original material are witnesses. They know what they wrote.

[raynaputi]

Here's one reference of the changes and alterations done http://hillsborough.independent.gov....0030840001.pdf

[johncar54]

Don't forget some of those who wrote the original material are witnesses. They know what they wrote.

Yes, but do we ?

And if we do not, then we cannot make allegations that there was a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, because we do not know.

[lastlid]

Don't forget some of those who wrote the original material are witnesses. They know what they wrote.

Yes, but do we ?

And if we do not, then we cannot make allegations that there was a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, because we do not know.

I have seen people interviewed on TV, including ex police officers, state that their original statements have been crucially tampered with. These people will no doubt form a fraction of many that will give evidence in the future.

I think that the "roof is going to blown right off" of this case. I am not a Liverpool supporter, by the way. Just a supporter of justice.

[johncar54]

Lastlid, it is a sad reality that many officers (including some senior officers) do not understand what amounts to admissible evidence and what does not.

Some who may have 'enjoyed' including personal criticism of a senior officer, might well have been reluctant to accept that they were incompetent.

Again, without being able to see what was specifically excluded, I cannot add to what I have posted.

[johncar54]

Raynaputi Here's one reference of the changes and alterations done

But again, as far as I can see, it does not show what was done.

[lastlid]

"Police officers could face criminal charges over alleged changes to statements after the Hillsborough disaster, it has been announced.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said a 'large number' of current and former officers would be investigated over what happened on the day of the tragedy in Sheffield in 1989 - and during the subsequent alleged cover-up."

Its not looking good, John.

[KeithD]

..and the Attorney General is taking action due to cover-up by the police http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

[johncar54]

Lastlid, But a newspaper who want to sell newspapers, making such a wide ranging comment does not mean it is based on reality.

My saying;

Or maybe this is all about the compensation culture.

Blame someone else, who has money (albeit public money, yours and my taxes) and make a claim 'no win no fee'

Does not mean that is so.

Although I have my own opinion on it.

[raynaputi]

Raynaputi Here's one reference of the changes and alterations done

But again, as far as I can see, it does not show what was done.

If you want to read all the disclosed material http://hillsborough.independent.gov....20/page/1.html and Keith already provided above the link of the materials that show the amended documents..clearly signed by officers with headers, timeline, etc. you can compare and see if it matches or not. I don't think they would release it in public if these doesn't prove anything.

[lastlid]

Lastlid, But a newspaper who want to sell newspapers, making such a wide ranging comment does not mean it is based on reality.

My saying;

Or maybe this is all about the compensation culture.

Blame someone else, who has money (albeit public money, yours and my taxes) and make a claim 'no win no fee'

Does not mean that is so.

Although I have my own opinion on it.

Time will tell.

I suppose one can also say that just because the police say it was the fault of the Liverpool fans, doesn't mean it was based on reality. Lets wait and see what further investigations reveal.....


"The Independent Hillsborough Panel Report last month revealed 164 police statements were altered - 116 of them to remove or change negative comments about the policing of the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at the Sheffield stadium.

It said police and emergency services had made "strenuous attempts" to deflect the blame for the disaster on to fans.

The panel also found that 41 of the 96 who died had the "potential to survive" and calls have been made for fresh inquests."

This isn't newspaper hype or greedy claimants. It is a lengthy independent report on the corruptness in the police force, amongst other things, at that time.

[lastlid]

"Chief Constable David Crompton told a parliamentary select committee there were 100 serving officers on duty, as well as hundreds now retired and some from other forces.

Mr Crompton, who agreed under questioning that some police had been "sick" to deflect blame on to Liverpool fans, said his force was not making decisions about officers' culpability and was leaving that to the IPCC.

Asked by committee member David Winnick what would represent "closure" for the force, the chief constable said prosecutions if officers had broken the law."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-19960279

I envisage some officers being charged and found guilty. It isn't just what is being reported in the papers. There are are a lot of untampered witness statements from outside of the police force to be heard along with witness statements to be heard from within the force.

Dont forget. Crompton has already apologised "...the police lost control and lies were told about how that happened"

South Yorkshire Police's Hillsborough apology

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19569708

[lastlid]

I confess that I have not read the full report in this case but from TV film it appears that the fans pushing forward were the direct cause of the fatalities. Had they not done so, no one would have been injured or killed.

That statements were changed, in itself, does not prove any criminality.

Statements which are to be used in criminal cases may only include admissible evidence.

It is a fact that even police officers, many of them, do not understand what evidence is admissible and thus, in many cases inadmissible evidence is normally edited from statements before they are submitted.

It has become obvious through the Taylor report, a lengthy Justice for the 96 campaign and recent revelations in the press and TV etc etc that what was really key evidence was erased as inadmissible evidence by a number of the police in an attempt to cover up their incompetence / error. And thus intentionally changed to pervert the course of justice. Criminal.

[johncar54]

And thus intentionally changed to pervert the course of justice. Criminal.

Sorry Lastlid, but I had got the impression, from your previsions posts, that you were not professionally qualified to make such a statement. I must have been wrong !

Perhaps you would be good enough to tell us on what evidence (as opposed to newspaper gossip) you base that judgement.

I should also be grateful if you would define what you mean by Justice for the 96 campaign. I hope it at least includes a desire that the fans who actually injured and killed the victims are brought to justice and convicted of manslaughter.

Thanks John

[lastlid]

And thus intentionally changed to pervert the course of justice. Criminal.

Sorry Lastlid, but I had got the impression, from your previsions posts, that you were not professionally qualified to make such a statement. I must have been wrong !

Perhaps you would be good enough to tell on what evidence (as opposed to newspaper gossip) you base that judgement.

Thanks John

Were those that conducted the Taylor report not professionally qualified?
Is the current chief of South Yorkshire police not professionally qualified?

What they are saying is good enough for me. And the up and coming IPCC investigation will be good enough for me.