I get what you're saying but he is entitled to a defence just as much as anyone else. We don't want him bleating when he's found guilty as seems likely. I'd be interested to know who will be paying for it though.
Just heard it on talk sport so came here to report it. How much we betting he commits suicide before facing the consequences?
Good question, in light of his admittance to opening the gate any public money would be wasted on him. He's already cost the council tax payers of South Yorkshire and the British legal system(legal aid)an astronomical amount of money down the years even though he knew all along where the blame lies, he should be and probably will be thrown to the wolves by the establishment now because anything other than a guilty verdict for him and his fellow accused criminals will take the justice system back to the dark ages. JFT96 please log in to view this image
So this will go down as manslaughter - maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Not sure how this works but would it be 95 life sentences running concurrently? If he isn't given life sentences, then 95 x whatever the sentence is will amount to a life sentence.
These people went to a football match and never came home(ever again) please log in to view this image This bastard was match commander that day and retired soon after with his handsome police pension, enjoyed his life and thought he gotten away with it. Think again you absolute ****. please log in to view this image JFT96
As I said above, justice will never truly take place because he's already happily lived another 29yrs of his life. He's claimed mental health issues which could well be true but he's still tried to avoid responsibility. Attempting to avoid responsibility for one hour is bad enough, twenty nine years? TWENTY NINE ****ING YEARS!!! He's a true definition of a total ****. Even being tortured to death would be too good for him now!
The age of the defendants will become a problem. I am sure between now and any trial they will all develop diseases which will mean they will not have to stand trial and if they do and are found guilty they will get let off lightly due to ill health. Then once it is over will all make miraculous recoveries. Some of us can remember the "Guinness trial" In May 1991, Saunders and his co-accused appealed against their convictions. The guilty verdicts were upheld, though his sentence was halved after medical evidence was produced at the Court of Appeal that suggested he was suffering from serious illness. A diagnosis of pre-senile Alzheimer's disease was accepted by the Appeal Court. Alzheimer's is an incurable, progressive degenerative disease of the brain, but Saunders subsequently made a full recovery from his medical condition. Dr Patrick Gallway, a forensic pathologist who was an expert witness at the appeal, explained in 1996 that a diagnosis for the condition is initially "very difficult" and said "so we did not make one; we expressed worries about it."[3]
tbh I don't even know what justice would look like now. As already said, the guilty parties have all lived their lives doing day to day everything they wanted to. Had they come clean straight away and held their hands up to the parts they each played that led to the horrific event, I'm sure some sympathy may have gone their way. Not to own up and to go as far as covering up meant that was never going to happen. Life sentences for the lot of them - which they must serve - wouldn't amount to very much actual time now. Is that justice?
Exactly. At 70+ their life certainly isn't over but they have lived their best days already and are in decline. They certainly won't see out a life sentence.
I have the terrible suspicion that Duckenfield will never actually stand trial as it will be argued that he can no longer get a fair trial due to the public knowledge regarding the case. The fact that there wouldn't be a case without quarter of a century of tireless campaigning by the families which means there is a widespread public knowledge which could lead to that dreadful scenario is simply to painful though hopefully i'm totally wrong (again).
That's what these hearings were for mate, to decide if they would get a fair trial. The news today says yes they will and the trials can go ahead. Bettison is the only one still to be decided.
thought it was to clear the "stop" on future prosecutions for Bettinson which was put on following the private prosecution.When i said he might not stand trial is that my guess is the defence will offer that as a legal argument for stopping the trial in the opening exchages.
"fair trial"? The deceased, their families, those that were injured at Hillsborough, those that survived Hillsborough, Liverpool FC, the people and city of Liverpool never got a fair trial but they were all tried in the scumbag press and found guilty of being responsible for the deaths of the 96 based on what the accused ****ers fed them for years, and it turned out to be nothing but gratuitous lies designed to save a few ****'s from prosecution and doing as much damage as possible to the above mentioned. A guilty verdict in court would suffice first and foremost because of the significance and the punishment will never compensate for the crimes but the harsher the better imho.