The Hillsborough Inquest verdict: SB Nation concludes that The Hillsborough inquest verdicts mark the beginning of justice for the 96; " "It's taken the British justice system 27 years, one week and four days to come up with an answer. It's required two inquests, the first hideously botched; a formal inquiry; a number of unsuccessful appeals to various courts; a subsequent Independent Panel; a long-running and remarkable justice campaign; much admirable investigative journalism; and the peeling back of years and years of political and institutional obfuscation and cover up. But the families of those who died at Hillsborough finally know how the 96 lost their lives: They were unlawfully killed by those who were obliged to ensure their safety." SB Nation;

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: A lesson of the first inquest is that  the truth of what  actually occurred -  as contrasted with the fabric of lies woven by police, politicians, some media and others -  was far too  great to be buried by officialdom; Then, when the government had no choice but to hold a second inquest,   the truth - ugly and disturbing as it might be - poured out.  The deceased, their families and the public  deserved nothing less.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

STORY: "The Hillsborough inquest verdicts mark the beginning of justice for the 96," by Andi Thomas, published by SB Nation on April 26, 2016.

SUB-HEADING:  "Hillsborough was a carefully orchestrated cover up, and now the official record reflects that the Liverpool fans who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed. But the families of the victims don't have justice yet."

GIST: "It's taken the British justice system 27 years, one week and four days to come up with an answer. It's required two inquests, the first hideously botched; a formal inquiry; a number of unsuccessful appeals to various courts; a subsequent Independent Panel; a long-running and remarkable justice campaign; much admirable investigative journalism; and the peeling back of years and years of political and institutional obfuscation and cover up. But the families of those who died at Hillsborough finally know how the 96 lost their lives: They were unlawfully killed by those who were obliged to ensure their safety. This finding is not in itself a criminal conviction; inquests determine the legal facts surrounding deaths, but do not determine criminal guilt. But it is an assertion by this jury that they believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the killings amounted to breach of criminal law. In this case, the jury were told that they would have to be "sure that David Duckenfield, the match commander, was responsible for the manslaughter by gross negligence of those 96 people." They were directed to consider his "conduct" as well as his "responsibility." Seven to two, they were sure. The first inquest, consistently criticised by campaigners and journalists, did not consider any evidence beyond a cut-off point of 3:15 p.m. that afternoon, nine minutes after the game was stopped and the fans began to enter the pitch. It was composed of a series of mini-inquests in which police officers read out short accounts and no witnesses were called. And it returned a blanket verdict of "accidental death;" a finding that sat on the books until 2012 despite witness testimony that some victims had been alive and conscious as late as 4 p.m., and despite repeated and consistent complaints that evidence was misrepresented or overlooked. This second inquest has concluded that 95 of the 96 victims died, or could have died, after that 3:15 p.m. cut-off point. It has exposed police officers and other officials to cross-examination, in the course of which Duckenfield accepted responsibility for the deaths, acknowledged that he was inadequately experienced to oversee the operation and admitted that he lied about his decision to open the exit gate and admit hundreds of fans into the already overcrowded central pens of the terrace. And it has replaced that finding of accidental death with this of unlawful killing. This finding is important not just because it finally answers the question of how. It is important because it finally drags the British institutional record into line with what was known by many within and without football at the time and has only become more obvious since. It is another crack in what was for years an almost-united front of dehumanising contempt for ordinary people from the political, judicial and policing institutions of Britain, along with those elements in the media that cravenly backed them. And it forces those who would still deny the obvious to either finally retract, or admit that they don't actually care what happened and they just want to get on with noisily hating one or more of the following: people from Liverpool; people from the North; people from the working class; people who like football; people. It is, also, a demonstration of the power of grass-roots campaigning and persistence and sheer bloody-minded not-backing-down in the face of said indifference and contempt. Some have attempted to suggest that today's outcome should restore faith in the British justice system. It should not; justice delayed is always justice denied, and this outcome had to be clawed out of a reluctant state. Instead, it should bolster our faith that justice can sometimes be achieved despite the best efforts of exceptionally powerful people and bodies who have an interest in seeing it frustrated. That may be significantly less comforting, but we'll have to make do. So, this inquest outcome establishes that the Hillsborough families were right. What comes next is the process of discovering exactly how wrong everybody else was.".........The idea of closure is a hopeless one in cases like this, where the shocks and scars are borne by so many different people in so many different ways. For some this will be a glorious moment of blessed relief and vindication, for others an irrelevance in a world long broken. But Hillsborough has long persisted as a snarl of unanswered questions at the heart of British football and British social history, and now we have one of the most important and fundamental answers. They were unlawfully killed by those who were obliged to ensure their safety."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2016/4/26/11510024/hillsborough-inquest-verdicts-cover-up-liverpool-justice-for-the-96

See related story on Stefan Popper -  the discredited Hillsborough coroner who conducted the notorious  later quashed - first inquest at the link below; (Discredited Hillsborough coroner Stefan Popper under investigation - but has died - Liverpool Echo)..."The Independent Police Complaints Commission today confirmed “research continues on whether any form of influence was placed upon coroner Dr Stefan Popper as result of the relationship between him and West Midlands Police”.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/discredited-hillsborough-coroner-stefan-popper-11246522

See Wikipedia account of the first inquest at the link below: "Inquests into the deaths, commencing later in 1989, proved controversial. South Yorkshire coroner Stefan Popper limited the main inquest to events up to 3:15 pm on the day of the disaster – nine minutes after the match was halted and the crowd spilled onto the pitch. Popper said this was because the victims were either dead, or brain dead, by 3:15 pm. The decision angered the families, many of whom felt the inquest was unable to consider the response of the police and other emergency services after that time.^[141] The inquest returned a verdict of accidental death on 26 March 1991, much to the dismay of the bereaved families, who had been hoping for a verdict of unlawful killing or an open verdict, and for manslaughter charges to be brought against the officers who had been present at the disaster. Popper's decision was subsequently endorsed by the Divisional Court who considered it to have been justified in the light of the medical evidence available to him.^[142] Relatives later failed to have the inquest reopened to allow more scrutiny of police actions and closer examination of the circumstances of individual cases. Anne Williams, who lost her 15-year-old son, Kevin, appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, on the strength of witness statements that her son showed signs of life at 4:00 pm. Her case was rejected in March 2009.^[143] On 19 April 2009, the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced she had requested secret files concerning the disaster should be made public.^[144] On 8 March 2011 the Hillsborough Independent Panel announced it would examine previously hidden documents to determine what took place after the 3:15 pm cutoff imposed during the inquest in 1991. A HIP spokesman said: "We have a wide remit to analyse all documents relating to the context, circumstances and consequences of the tragedy and its aftermath."^[145] A governmental e-petition attracted over 139,000 signatories on 17 October 2011,^[146] and parliament agreed to debate the full release of cabinet documents relating to the disaster to the public.^[147] During a debate in the House of Commons, the Labour MP for Liverpool Walton, Steve Rotheram, read out a list of the victims and, as a result, the names were entered into Hansard – the official publication of printed scripts of all House of Commons debates.^[148][149]Following an application by the Attorney-General, in December 2012 the High Court quashed the verdicts in the original inquests and ordered fresh inquests to be held.^"

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com;

Harold Levy;