Key questions for the Hillsborough Independent Panel – from the Hillsborough Family Support Group
Paddy Shennan presents the crucial questions bereaved families hope the Hillsborough Independent Panel will answer next weekNEXT Wednesday, the Hillsborough Independent Panel – which was set up to secure the maximum possible disclosure of documents relating to the disaster – will publish its report.
This will detail how the new information adds to the public’s understanding of the tragedy and its aftermath.
Here is a summary of the key questions the Hillsborough Family Support Group asked the panel to answer after it was set up:
Why did a venue without a safety certificate get used for such a high-profile match and why have Sheffield Wednesday not been taken to task for this lack of duty of care?
Why were Liverpool fans given the smaller end of the ground, when they had the largest number of supporters? Liverpool Football Club had asked for this to be changed – why was their request ignored?
Why was (Chief Superintendent David) Duckenfield in charge on the day? What were his qualifications/experience/competency? Why was (Chief Superintendent Brian) Mole not in charge, as he was in 1988 (when Liverpool also played Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough in the FA Cup semi-final)?
Why were the controls and precautions that had been adopted in 1988 not used in 1989?
Why was there a 10% reduction in manpower for the 1989 semi-final from the 1988 semi-final? Eighty more police officers at the Leppings Lane end could have made a significant difference, filtering fans. Approx 980 officers were used for the 1988 semi-final, 1000 for the semi-final in 1987 and 1,200 for the semi-final between Wolves and Spurs (in 1981). Please can you look into documentation which explains the reasons for this reduced manpower?
Ref: PC 2302 Powell, Taylor Report – referring to the policing in Leppings Lane at 2.45pm – the following passage was omitted: “The first thing I said was ‘where are all the Bobbies, there is hardly anyone there’, I could not understand how such a crowd could possibly have gathered. I recall in previous games there was usually a large police presence concentrated on this part of the ground, usually forming some sort of cordon.” Could the panel comment?
Why did the police further delay fans making their way by road to the match (ie. on the Snake and Woodhead Passes) when roadworks were already hindering their journey?
Why was the kick-off not delayed?
The people in pen 3 were in dire straits by 2.30pm and by 2.45pm were in serious danger of losing their lives. Why has this never been fully investigated? See camera 5.
Should there have been two separate inquests – one for those who died inside the ground and a separate one for those outside the ground who came in when the gates were opened?
Why did only one ambulance make it on to the pitch?
Who stopped the ambulances from coming on to the pitch, telling them fans were fighting? The ambulances were lined up waiting to come in – who stopped them?
What happened to the St John Ambulance team who were in attendance on the day? Have their statements and/or testimonies ever been scrutinised?
We know a meeting took place between Mrs Thatcher, (her chief press secretary) Bernard Ingham, the Home Secretary (Douglas Hurd) and the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, Peter Wright on April 16, 1989 – were minutes taken and are these available?
Was this the start of the sanitation process to blame the fans for the tragedy? Ingham still publicly blames “drunken ticketless fans” for the disaster – who misled or encouraged him into thinking this?
Why, when they already knew before they opened the gates that pen 3 was overcrowded did they not transfer people out of pen 3 into the side pens?
Why were only 14 (victims) taken to hospital?
Why were police statements edited?
Why couldn’t the accounts from the police notebooks be used in the mini-inquest, or anything else for that matter?
Jack Layden, we believe, was involved in compensation claims. He was the chairman of the South Yorkshire Police Authority and is alleged to have been a director of Municipal Mutual, the insurer of SYPA, South Yorkshire Police and Sheffield City Council, among others. If this is true was there an undeclared conflict of interest?
Statements prove pens 3 and 4 were overfull by 2.30–2.45pm and people were probably already dying. Why was the order given to open gates and not consider the consequences to the people inside? It wasn’t just one person in the control box, everybody there had a duty of care to those attending the match.
Taylor states Duckenfield made “a blunder of the first magnitude” by not sealing off the already full pens after opening the gates. Other officers in the control box could have told Duckenfield that he needed to close the tunnel leading to pens 3 and 4 before opening the gates. Was this the case?
This scenario also applies to the implementation of the major accident and emergency plan: nobody in the control box set the plan in motion, although all had been trained in major accident procedures. Will the panel please investigate this in greater detail than Taylor did, especially with their greater access to relevant documentation?
How many people were placed by the River Don, being assumed dead, and for how long were they left? Note: we have no evidence backing this point.
The treatment the families received at the temporary mortuary on the night of April 15, 1989 requires further scrutiny: Statements were taken immediately after the families had identified their loved ones, without any legal representation. These statements were then used in inquests etc. The inference was all around alcohol.
Coroner Dr (Stefan) Popper’s instructions were to take blood alcohol levels on all victims – why were no blood alcohol levels taken from the senior police officers and other key officials?
Why did (Chief Constable) Peter Wright make such a speedy exit?
Why was West Midlands Police Force requested to conduct enquiries and collect statements from witnesses (West Midlands Serious Crime Squad was disbanded in 1989 amid claims of a culture of corrupt conduct by officers).
Why were the radial fence gates of pens 2 and 3 locked when Sheffield Wednesday were told those pens were only safe if the gates were left open? The fire service stated it was safe only if those gates remained open.
Why was the football club or its officials never charged with neglect and/or failing in their duty of care?
How can the panel be sure they have reviewed all the documents? How would they even know if they have been given all the documents? Will the panel be aware if there are gaps?
Funding of Duckenfield and (Superintendent) Murray’s defence ran into many millions – this enabled South Yorkshire Police Authority/South Yorkshire Police lawyers to be able to thwart the families on many occasions at all levels of legal and civil proceedings. It went far beyond the normal employer’s responsibility to its employees – should taxpayers’ money have been used in this way?
Why were Duckenfield and Murray allowed to retire on enhanced “ill-health” pensions (and thereby avoid discipline/potential loss of pension) as soon as the Police Complaints Authority instructed SYP to initiate disciplinary proceedings, when they (SYP) had failed to do so?
What can be done/said about “lies” in police statements (eg. victim’s name was made available to the panel on the request of the family) – where police statement said he was vomiting beer, yet there was no alcohol in his blood alcohol sample?
Why were police notes from the day not admissible as evidence?
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/2012/09/06/key-questions-for-the-hillsborough-independent-panel-from-the-hillsborough-family-support-group-100252-31777412/2/ 
