The Inquests 4: Decision time

So we have two choices, go to high court for a JR on our being refused IP status. Or keep our powder dry. As ever, we talk through the options. We have another survivor and a campaigner on a conference call and a decision is made. If we go for the JR and lose, we are all played out, we have lost and we can no longer influence the Coroner.

Or hold off, inform the Coroner that we have instructed our lawyers we will JR the minute we feel our interests are not being fully represented in court during the summing up. (One of his arguments was that the family lawyers were already representing us, as they had survivors who lost loved ones within their ranks.)

We also now had a huge ace up our sleeve – If you shit on us and we lose, we will be in court within days asking for Q7 to be found unsafe, as the people you found against were unrepresented. Not because we didn't ask, but because the Coroner refused to allow us to defend ourselves.

That is a pretty strong card and we are happy that whilst we haven't got IP status confirmed, we have managed to ensure the Coroner knows, not suspects, he knows that the fans will be making merry hell if things go against us. We now have the legal argument, the lawyer, the families' support, the funding (from families) and we also have the press. Two of our gang are journalists. One of our supporters used to work at the Sunday Times and is well connected. We have contacts at the BBC, ITV and C4 News. I have already done interviews with the BBC and ITV about the WMP. If things go against us, getting access to the media will not be difficult.

So the final stage comes into play, We called it Operation Vigilance. Get to the inquests and be visible. The Coroner's team know who we are, and I take every chance to make sure they know I am there. During the legal arguments I make a point of sending lots of emails, lots of texts, to be outside for phone calls. I even take my own dongle so I can email without using the court wifi.

In the breaks I chat to family members, initially as we need to build relations in case things go against us. Soon we chat for no other reason than that they are really nice people. Humble and reassuring, they reassure us we did nothing wrong and that they don't believe the SYP testimony. On a couple of occasions I get upset by the evidence, once literally walking out in tears after hearing yet another lying SYP calling us “animals” and this is presented by the Coroner in his summing up. The family members are supportive and I get a couple of hugs, much appreciated and much needed.

At one point a guy from the court team even comes and sits behind me. I give him a proper stare and move my seat to the back row. We are here, we are watching and we have a fcking great big pile of dung we are going to drop on your head Mr Coroner if you shit on us and if your jury find against us. You will be vilified in the press as the man who refused to allow survivors the right to defend themselves. Unprecedented, unfair and highly questionable legal decisions. That's some legacy you are being left with.

Well did we make a difference? Who knows and we never will know. What I do know is that I was told that 95% of the families' lawyers submissions towards the summing up were successful. Our little intervention came at just the right time, just as the Coroner was considering all the submissions, we helped to turn the screw. The submissions were accepted, the summing up was changed (we felt it largely fair having heard it) and jury did the rest. We know the Coroner took notice, as he name checked Richie in his summing up about 5 times. That was no doubt his attempt to placate our anger, that or he was trying to undermine our appeal that he knew was coming if Q7 went wrong for us.

The beautiful thing for me, is that it was survivors. We got 3 more survivors to apply, including Di and Val, a horrible decision for them as they, like us, risked getting the IP status and holding things up. Luckily they were are brave as we were. Like many that had been through unspeakable trauma on the day and many times since. Like many they were worried about Q7 and distraught at the idea they and we could take any of the blame. But they were determined, determined to do anything, anything that might help the fight for justice, no matter how small.

So we had six of us rejected and ironically we were all formally cleared as part of the rejection. Six of us exonerated but as Val said, that means nothing without the jury clearing everyone.

The Inquests 3: Yer name's not down, yer not coming in.

Our requests have caused a bit of a stir and some family members are telling us “We have heard you are representing the fans.” What? Hardly, we are 4 guys who are representing ourselves. It's not for us to represent the fans. I am not even a Liverpool fan! The SoS or LFC or FSA, now they could represent the fans but like us, have chosen to keep away from the families' inquests. Unlike us they probably don't know about Q7 and about the summing up that is about to shaft us.

One of our options, if we get IP status granted is to speak to another group so they can then represent the fans. An informal approach is made to the SoS to make them aware of our plans and they also seem supportive of what we are trying to achieve. Nothing formal is agreed, but we are confident they would help mobilise 100s maybe 1000s of survivors if necessary.

Back in Warrington and we are getting informal support from family members, who support our IP application even though it may mean a 4 week delay. They tell us ' “We've been waiting 27 years, another month isn't ideal, but you should do what's right for you”. We are getting big grins and thumbs up from the legal teams and word is coming through that they want us to apply. Are we being played? For sure, but we are willing participants and after much soul-searching we apply. One of the original applicants drops out, but we don't fall out. We all know it is a personal decision and we are all wanting the same thing.

Our application goes in and we await the solicitor inviting us into the proceedings. We get ahead of ourselves and I start working out which SYP I would request are re-examined. Which of the lying bastards, and there are many, should we pull over the coals one more time. I joke to the others of the irony of our “Turning up last minute and demanding to get in” and we can all laugh at this despite the stress / tension.

We soon get our response, which is basically fck off again. The response seems to be all over the place and full of contradictions, as if it were pulled together hurriedly and late into the night. The most bizarre of the arguments against us being legally represented at proceedings in which we are being accused of contributing to the deaths of 96 people, is that the survivors of 7/7/ bombings were refused IP status at the inquests of those who died.

Seriously? These guys have no idea of what natural justice is do they? Or that anyone reading that will laugh. The survivors of 7/7 were not being accused of anything, we are. How can they use that as some sort of precedent?

We are passed the name of a lawyer in London who will assist us, for free, presumably knowing he would get to represent us if we get our IP status granted. He prepares us a response, a really aggressive letter to the Coroner and states again we want IP status, this time in legal talk. Again we are knocked back and left deflated.

Another bizarre twist is that the response now includes the fact that we are exonerated. Part of the reasoning not to give us IP is that the coroner, nor indeed any of the Interested Parties who have been made aware of our application, none of them raises any misconduct on our part. We are formally cleared of any wrong doing. Of course this means little, to exonerate us, yet blame the fans, as this will still mean a stain on our name. The argument is made often and we are steadfast on this, that to blame one fan, you blame us all.

But there is a silver cloud here. The Coroner has stated we are blameless, so exactly who is to blame? Who are these fans who caused the problems. If you can't identify them, then it seems you are on weak ground regarding Q7. Your question is against a catch all “the fans” yet everyone who has come forward is blameless. Jim loves his strategy stuff and highlights an anomaly in the Coroner's position. “There are now 3 categories of supporter. A, those who died, who are are blameless. B, those who by chance applied for IP status, all now officially blameless too, and C – the rest, who are still subject to Q7, although no one can name them, or show any misbehavior on their part.”

The Coroner's arguments seems weak and we speak again to our London lawyer who says we can judicially review the decision. This means the proceedings are held at a court in Manchester and that the inquests stop for 24 hours only. 3 judges would rule on whether the refusal of our IP request is legal in law. Or whether the Coroner was right to exclude us from the proceedings. Again, after much soul-searching we instruct our lawyer to go for a JR.

This is big, as if successful, this would destroy the Coroner's reputation. Given that he is in the middle of summing up, this could work against us, Making him look like a useless twat, whilst very satisfying, does not necessarily play into our hands. The papers are served and we attend the pre-court meeting on a Thursday in London. We meet with the barrister who will argue our case and we are due in court 10am the following morning.

The barrister takes us through all the legal arguments and we have one weakness to our case, namely that the proceedings have been going on for 2 years so why did we not apply 2 years ago? Our position is that we did not know 2 years ago that Q7 would be on the table. But whilst it is understandable, would it stand up to 3 high court judges? 4 hours of discussions and we ask the key question to the barrister – Are we going to win? As ever we get a load of legal talk but the message is simple – unlikely. High court judges don't like to overrule other high court judges, so they will find a way to reject your claim, probably on the fact you are late.

The inquests 2: A shot across the bows

We go through our options. We could picket the inquests, we could go now to the press, my idea is to shut down the M6/M62 interchange every day for a week. With banners, get arrested, back the next day. Maybe the M25 too. Cause merry fucking hell. Direct action is all these bastards understand. Try the nice approach and you get shafted, time to take the gloves off.

Whatever we do is for one purpose only, to let the Coroner know “We are here” and “We are going nowhere”. Let him think about his summing up and about the appropriateness of including Question 7 at all. He is due to break in early January and to start his summing up we estimate in February. We guess he will already be preparing his summing up, certainly in his mind.

The summing up is important too, as a Coroner who is (as we suspect) determined to shaft the fans, can almost direct a jury to a certain finding. We agree on our strategy. Calmer and saner voices than mine prevail and we agree to write a polite letter. (Apparently “Oi Goldring you cunt, shaft us and we promise we will make you wish you were never born” doesn't cut it.) I go along with the consensus that it needs to be polite or we risk antagonising him and making things worse.

Our letter would set out our concerns and would ask the Coroner to consider these when he is summing up. It is really a “shot across the bows” - all our arguments will have already been made – but coming from some survivors, he will know we are around and not in the mood to take a share of the blame.

We co-opt some help. Chris and Jim are experienced in the campaign, Jim was with us in the pub too. Chris is good mates with Tim and knows senior people in the HJC very well. They are rock solid and are fully committed to helping with our letter. Four has become six. Ade often comes back with legal input, only later do I find out it is his wonderful girlfriend, a lawyer! Six has become seven.

We identify a number of legal arguments/concerns we wish to put to the coroner, namely

The arbitrary split of the 96 (exonerated) and the fans (not exonerated)

The inclusion of Q7 when no new evidence has been presented

The “May have” supplementary question that sets such a low bar and is so ambiguous, as to be meaningless in our opinion.

The fact that fans were not represented at the inquests and could not defend our reputations.

In a nutshell, we aren't happy, we are here and we are going nowhere, as per our strategy. We toy with whether we should ask for Interested Party status but know the families would not want this. It would hold things up and they have already been waiting for years. We would suddenly become the least popular people on Merseyside. The guys who held up the inquests for a month whilst they got a legal team together.

So we agree to state on our letter, that due to our desire not to hold up proceedings, we merely ask that our concerns are passed onto the Coroner for his consideration when he is summing up. We know the families have been to hell and back many times and these are the inquests for their loved ones. Is it our place to interupt them at all? We share many worried communications, emails, texts, phones calls and meets in the pub debating our best move. The families are key here, but we have our own reputations to defend. This is a proper tight rope and how to proceed in our interests without causing them anguish from delays is difficult.

We decide to run our letters past the families' legal teams and past the key people / leaders in the two family groups. We are confident the HJC guys will be onside, 2 of our gang know people at HJC personally. But no one has knows anyone at the HFSG. I know a HFSG family member, but only loosely through a Facebook campaign page.

We travel en mass to Warrington, paying our own train fares, hotel expenses. It is important we build some relationships here, with key players. If things go tits up at the inquests, we could be hung out to dry. The general public has no more appetite for the campaign for justice and many family members do not have the energy. To be blunt, many are dying off. Stalwarts of the HJC like Maureen Church and John Glover are no longer able to fight for the reputation of their children. We do not have the funds.

One of the most shameful aspects of the cover up, is how many people, good honest people, have not lived to see their children vindicated. Not lived long enough to pick up their death certificates, denied that basic right by the deceit and lies of so many people. The list is long and if I try and complete it I would only upset some by missing out important people. But that injustice is one that can never be righted, can never be corrected. Shameful doesn't seem adequate, but that is the only word I know that gets close.

This really is the last chance saloon it seems, so we need to do all we can to make sure the Coroner's summing up is a fair one. The morning we arrive is tense as the Coroner is to start his summing up. We have heard rumours that the family lawyers are unhappy, but we have not seen sight of the draft summing up sent to the lawyers prior to the Coroner delivering them.

Our worst fears are confirmed when as we sit outside in the common area, family members come out of the HJC room in tears. One who knows Tim has tears down her face. “Good luck lads, you're going to need it, they are sh*tting on you big time.”

Slowly word comes out, that the Coroner's summing up is pretty much a public execution of the fans. He has even included 7 pages from 'pissgate woman' as she is known, a local resident who complained vociferously about Liverpool fans urinating in her garden. Whose evidence was so inconsequential that she admitted she knew nothing of the events at Leppings Lane. Yet her evidence was to be given large billing by the Coroner.

Then there was the evidence of SYP, to be presented without reference to the cross examination and to the photos and audio visual that helped the family lawyers take it apart during the inquests. To present for example Lomas' evidence as if it were accepted is do such a disservice to justice as to convince everyone, the lawyers, the family members, that we are being set up. The families are given their unlawful killing and the SYP get to pin some of the blame on the fans. That way everyone is happy.

Not quite Mr Coroner, not everyone, cos we are not happy, and we soon learn neither are family members. They, and I mean every one of them we speak with at the inquests, agree with our views. They see a slight on the fans, as a slight on their loved ones who died. We were next to them when they died. 30 of them came through Gate C with me. Whilst the SYP and commanders' lawyers can argue, we are not of course accusing the 96, that is exactly what they are doing.

And so it is, that we are met warmly on our visit. A leading member of the HJC approaches us. He has seen a copy of our proposed letter to the Coroner and indicates his strong support. “My brother” he says “was a fan, until he died. Blame the fans, you are blaming him.” Similar sentiments are heard from many family member attending the inquests. Someone points out that Margaret Aspinall's husband, Trevor and Jenni Hicks were all at the match and are no more likely to accept the authorities blaming the fans than we will.

Emboldened we agree to put the letter to the Coroner. We have been clear, we do not want to hold up proceedings, we merely wish the Coroner to consider our points, to ensure a fair summing up, not one that over-emphasises evidence against the fans and barely mentions evidence that exonerates us.

We get the response from the Coroner's solicitor, which I will paraphrase in non legal terms. “Who exactly are you? You have no legal standing so I won't pass on your letter. Now fuck off.”

Seriously? We are in the frame for contributing to / causing the deaths for 96 fellow fans and we cant even write a letter? We can't even have one little voice amongst the 112 legal teams paid for by the state? Our polite request, to consider some issues is met with a “Fuck off”, nicely dressed up in legal speak with the threat that we would be in contempt of court if we publicise our knock back.

We are enraged and we are emboldened. Every family member we have spoken to has done more than say they are “ok” with our intervention. They have encouraged us, told us they agree with all our arguments and tried to reassure us that we will not be alone if things go badly on Q7. The anguish on our faces must be clear as time and again people approach us to reassure us and to thank us for our trying to help. We all want the same thing and it is becoming clear that we have the support of the families, certainly every family member we have spoken with at Warrington.

So we decide, knowing the families we have spoken to are supportive, that we will ask for legal status, we will ask for Interested Party status. If that is the only way our views can be heard / considered then fair enough. We know what this means, it means we will possibly hold up the inquests. If awarded we will get a legal team who will have access to the summing up and will be able to put its submissions like all the other Interested Parties. Could we also put up witnesses as other IP s have? Could we call back witnesses and have our team re-examine them? Witnesses like PC Scott who the family legal teams went easy on as he was in a wheelchair. We are less forgiving, given the nature of his evidence which is toxic and damaging to our reputations.

And so it is that four of us, myself, Ade, Richie and Tim put our names to a letter formally requesting Interested Party status be granted. We are, if successful, about to risk becoming the most unpopular people on Merseyside outside the SYP. We may have the whispered support of the families' legal teams and the family members we know, but that can't be publicised. We will just be 4 trouble makers, 4 Jonny-come-latelys who are interfering in a legal process that is nothing to do with us.

Except it is to do with us, as we are being accused and we are demanding our right to defend our names and reputations. It may mean public and/or private criticism, but we believe we have every right to defend our reputations.

The Inquests 1: Bolt from the blue

Everybody knows the Hillsborough verdict. After 27 years, the families finally got justice. An inquest which lasted two years, a record in English law, resulted in the jury saying that the 96 people who were crushed to death at the Hillsborough stadium in 1989 were unlawfully killed. To call this an epic turnaround in the legal system is an understatement.

The verdict of Unlawful Killing overturned a verdict of Accidental Death which a previous inquest had passed in 1991 - and it is almost impossible to describe the pain which that first verdict caused to the families and friends of those who died and to people like myself who narrowly escaped death at Hillsborough. We knew it was wrong. We knew Hillsborough was no accident and that its many causes, but notably police incompetence and negligence, had been repeatedly covered up ever since.

People close to the inquest knew that literally thousands of people - family members, survivors, campaigners, lawyers - did their bit to bring about the new and just verdict. There were many high profile campaigners you won't need me to name, but there was equal commitment from innumerable survivors who relived difficult memories to give fresh statements and many took to the witness stand at Warrington and before that at the first inquest and at the Taylor inquiry.

But what nobody, even those involved throughout the inquest knows, is that a small group of survivors and campaigners campaigned behind the scenes on an aspect of the verdict which, had it gone against the survivors, would undoubtedly have cost lives.

We'll never know exactly how much influence we had in heading off that danger, and I want to be clear upfront that we don't claim any more than that we did our best, as thousands of others have, to try and help bring justice for not just the 96, but for the thousands of fellow survivors appallingly labelled by the SYP as having contributed to the deaths of their fellow fans.

Ours was just one piece in a huge jigsaw, but a significant piece nonetheless, and I do want to record our little gang and our efforts we made and how the system was stacked against us at every step of the way. How we were denied legal representation at the inquests and how we sought to bring pressure on the Coroner at the very time he was reviewing his critically important summing up of the evidence. It is indicative, I believe, of how the British legal system is stacked so heavily in favour of those with vested interests and against the ordinary member of the British public. But before you (as others have done) label me an agitator or someone with a grudge, read for yourself our experiences and make up your own mind.

We need to go back three years to the quashing of the verdicts. The Lord Chief Justice in so doing completely exonerated the fans and asked that the inquests be fact-finding rather than adversarial. His wish was that organisations and individuals would accept this, would defend their corner and that the Coroner's legal team could lead the jury through the evidence to enable the inquests to find the correct cause of death.

The preamble to the inquests takes some time, but we are confident they will find the truth. This time the discredited SYP are now largely ex-police officers. The Coroner won't apply the bizarre and hugely contested 3.15 cut off. The families' legal teams will be state funded, and it won't be the West Midlands Police preparing the testimony etc. for the Coroner.

At this point, I am actually living/working in Lagos Nigeria, so am a bit out of touch, but I follow the Liverpool Echo updates and am delighted to read that the HFSG lawyers will include Michael Mansfield. He needs no introduction and is, imho, one of the finest lawyers in our country.

The formal list of Interested Parties is many, with legal teams for the SYP, for the Police Fed, for the match commanders (Duckenfield, Marshall and Greenwood) and for Duckenfield's bosses (Jackson, Anderson and Hayes). They announce fairly early on they will be introducing alcohol and other aspects of fan behaviour into the proceedings, and we wonder what they have up their sleeve? If it is the same old SYP lies, well Taylor discredited at them, as did the HIP authors and the Lord Chief Justice. As did the Prime Minister come to think of it.

Either way, I am overseas so trust in the legal teams for the families and hope they can do the necessary to defend our corner. After all, the 96 dead were fans, they travelled with survivors, they drank in the pubs with them, they stood outside the turnstiles, they entered the stadium and stood on the same terrace with survivors. The only difference is that in the lottery of Pens 3 and 4, 96 fans were crushed to death.

Over time, and the testimony is all available to read, I grew more and more confident. Initially I was exasperated at the seemingly constant references to Heysel, to hooliganism and to alcohol by John Beggs (Duckenfield's main man) who seemed to throw in references to hooliganism at every opportunity. Over time, it is clear that even the Coroner was getting fed up of this and rumours circulate of a big falling out between Beggs and the Coroner. Indeed you only have to read the cross examination of Kenny Dalglish, where three times proceedings are halted for “legal arguments” when Beggs is cross examining Dalglish. It is clear reading between the lines that Beggs is doing all he can to mention hooliganism and the Coroner is getting fed up with him.

As an aside, if you want to know exactly what Beggs thinks is reasonable in a court, then read the Guardian report of his cross examining the parent whose daughter died at Deepcut. You can make your own conclusions as to the sort of person he is.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/08/deepcut-death-evidence-soldier-cheryl-james-did-not-kill-herself

The most momentous testimony over the course of the inquests is of course from David Duckenfield. He gives evidence over I think 7 days and is finally broken by the legal teams' persistence. He admits his errors and crucially that those errors caused the deaths. He also admits himself that his conduct fell below that expected of him. Game over we thought, or it should have been.

In the autumn (2015) I meet with a journalist who wishes to do an interview for transmission post verdict. He has seen many of the closed sessions (that you can tell people about, but may not publish or put on social media in case the jury hear of them) and informs me that the only cause of death under consideration is “Unlawful Killing” and that this is the only option the jury will be asked about. Now this is game over surely? If the evidence pointed even maybe to accidental death, surely this would be a question for the jury to consider? I leave the interview very happy, increasingly confident we are looking good.

About this time I start to meet socially with some fellow survivors / campaigners – to support ourselves as only fellow survivors can. We all have a common bond – yet we all have unique experiences too. We were all young men, unprepared with what we were going into. We all, at various times struggled with our demons and a couple of us had spent time in the cells following confrontations with the police.

Yet we were all unique too. Ade had struggled in the pen, been really poorly treated by the WMP and had struggled to cope with things. Tim had gone with 10 mates, only 7 coming home. I still don't understand how strong Tim is, so sure that it would have broken me losing a mate, let alone three. Richie had escaped and had carried bodies like Ade. Tim and Ade had been in the gym, something I was mercifully spared. Richie had also given evidence at both inquests. And I had my WMP experiences which seem so utterly disgusting reading them back.

So it's good to talk, to share, self-counselling in effect, at a time when Hillsborough was literally in the news (or the Echo at least) every day if you wanted to know about it. As people effectively labelled murderers by the SYP, we were very interested in it, fair to say.

So it is that we came together a fateful day in December, in a pub in London where we meet with the express intention of discussing the making of a documentary. Our stories are so strong, so powerful, so shocking and yet so few people understand. We had approached a few people in the media and had had some interest.

But at this point, everything changed. We arranged to meet up for a beer with a man who has spent some considerable time attending the inquest. He knows the families and lawyers well, is very well informed as to how proceedings are going and has some power behind the scenes. Starting that night and continuing to the present day, we referred to him as the Man In The Pub, (the MITP), as he wishes to remain anonymous and we continue to respect that wish.

The purpose of meeting him that night was to learn first hand how things were progressing. Given his connections, we are a bit in awe of him if truth be told. Ade has met him a couple of times but that is pretty much that. We meet in a pub before we meet the MITP and Ade is looking glum. Until that point, we had all been on the same page, aware of the jury only being asked about unlawful killing and happy we will soon see inquests with the right result

What's up Ade? He starts to explain that the MITP will know more, but it looks like the Coroner is trying to shaft us, trying to apportion a share of the blame on the fans. I stand in stunned silence, disbelieving what I am hearing. Why would he do that we ask, and plenty of theories abound. Another bent freemason? A mate of the SYP. He's been knobbled? Who knows but one thing we are adamant of is we aren't just going to accept a share of the blame and go “Ok then”.

The MITP turns up slightly later and confirms our worst fears. The Coroner has introduced a question, number 7 of 14, specifically relating to fan behaviour. “Did the fans cause or contribute to the deaths.” Worse, he has introduced a supplementary question, “If not, may the fans have caused or contributed...?”

What does 'may have' mean? We either did, or we didn't. What the fck does 'may have' mean? Tell me one case where a jury has been asked whether something 'may have' happened? It's ambiguous and it's an invitation to the jury to shit on us. We come to the conclusion we are being set up, set up to take a share of the wrap due to a Coroner who seems to think we will accept it. There will be an almighty shitstorm if we cop the blame. People won't be able to cope with it. Some survivors over the years have committed suicide, you want half a dozen more? Just to keep a load of bent SYP happy and placate their legal team? Really?

The implicit trade off seems to have been done, The families get unlawful killing, the SYP get to say that the crush outside the turnstiles was caused by the fans, not their own incompetent lack of planning.

We promise the MITP that we are not idiots. We may not have the influence of top lawyers etc. but we are all intelligent, educated and most key, we are determined. We are not being labelled murderers, it is isn't happening. We all agree we need to influence the Coroner, we need to make sure he understands that if he shits on the fans, there will be an almighty shitstorm.

And so it started, 5 determined Survivors, Survivors with attitude start to work on a plan. How can we get the message to the Coroner that he can't just shit on us. We may not be represented at the inquests, we may not have legal teams defending our corner, but you are going to get the most almighty shitstorm if we are labelled murderers, solely on the basis of the testimony of corrupt SYP officers.

Couple of corrections / ammendments

Am not going to change previous posts, but some things to correct in previous blogs.  Things I have learned from evidence in the inquests since writing my accounts:

On the day....

More fans died in Pen 3 than Pen 4.  I thought it was the other way round.

The timing of the barrier going is interesting.  In the blog I mention Beardsley hitting the bar.  I was actually out at that point as I have seen a photo of me outside the pens at 3.03pm.   That means the barrier went before Beardsley hit the bar.  I was stood in front of it, so know it went.  It may have broken in stages as I know many people believe it was the near miss that caused it to break.

I also mention Duckenfield first lying at 3.50pm.   Turns out he lied closer to 3.15pm.  Certainly when a number of the 96 were still fighting for their lives.  

WMP Interview

Don't think my interviewer was WMSCS - rather just an ordinary WMP copper.  That said, we know some WMSCS were on scene, so strongly suspect they were behind the counter narrative that was being pulled together.   

I wrote my blog before seeing my statements via the IPCC.  IT actually gets worse as they have added writing into the questionnaire after my interview.   The writing is in a different style to all the answers I made.

Worst is the answer to did I see fans drinking.  I replied yes and it is written as YES.   Then, in different style (Lower cursive writing, the YES and all other answers were written in block capital letters) is added the comment "Saw 50% of fans drinking"

This matters why?  Well for starters I never saw or said I saw 50% of fans drinking.   Secondly it matches the evidence of many dishonest SYP whose statements said exactly the same thing.  My statement was changed to match the SYP narrative.

How did they get away with it?

The question seems to have moved on, now that we all accept that 96 fans went to a football match, were unlawfully killed by police negligence, that the blame was then deflected onto the innocent supporters....the question is How? How have we allowed that to happen?

For 27 years the dishonest liars in the SYP (of which there were 100s) who put comments in their statements about drunkeness, ticketless fans, who used standard phrases like "animalistic behaviour" in describing fans like me, who allowed criticisms of the police to be removed from their statements, who fed lies to the press and to their friends in parliament, who took to the stands at the inquests, at the inquiries and lied, committed perjury, who fabricated evidence, who threatened and intimidated witnesses (like me), who got their friends to give false statements as "witnesses" (More later when that story is properly broken)

How did they get away with it? How is our establishment so utterly hopeless that they will allow a bunch of corrupt police to brand innocent people as killers? How did the press largely buy into this bullshit? How did those who investigate the police buy into this bullshit? How did our politicians allow this to carry on?  Where were the investigative press? 

The key failures here were in all levels of power, the press, the governments and the police themselves and the legal system. Many attempts were made to right the wrongs in the courts, yet the legal system failed miserably. Access to justice only comes with a fat wallet so it seems. Access to a voice only comes with power, which working class footie fans have so little of.

I think our society is so geared up, to protect the vested interests of those in power, and to deny the rights of the ordinary man. And this is not a political point, it is an anti-establishment point. Of those who helped to deny justice, Blair and Straw are as bad as anyone (Didn't want to upset Murdoch) and T.May has done as much as anyone to take on the vested interests within the corrupt police establishment.

I have heard many Journos say Tuesday was a "Great day for the British justice system" - utter nonsense.  I have not heard one fellow survivor or family member say that. Tuesday was a "Huge indictment on the British justice system" - that it took 27 years to get to the truth is a shameful indictment on the establishment and how they allowed good intelligent people - like many who will be reading this, to believe the lies of the SYP over the 1000s of other witnesses whose testimony you never heard (or when you did, you never believed).

The interview (with the WMP)

The Police Interview:

Background:

The newspapers are full of speculation about the causes of the Hillsborough disaster.  Two opposing views are coming out, with the key question being how did the gate into Hillsborough come to be opened?  Was it opened by the police or was it forced open by fans?  If the police opened it, why did they open it?

At the time, the police were collating evidence and a hotline was setup for fans to ring and pass on their details.  I had three crucial bits of evidence that I wanted to share, namely

1.     The gate being shown on the TV, was not the gate through which the fans had come.

2.     The gate was opened more than once. 

3.     The final opening on the gate was done by the police / stewards and the gate was not forced open.

I had been the last fan through the gate the first time it was opened, and had waited by the turnstiles for my friends who had not got in.  I had seen the gate being opened from inside the stadium and knew the police/stewards had opened it without it being broken down or forced open.

So I rang the number, left my details and address and waited for the police to get in touch.  Just short of three weeks after the disaster a knock on the door and two Police wanted to chat about what I had seen.  It took just five minutes, they took some notes and they took my unused match ticket and arranged for me to go to their offices the next day for a formal interview. 

No problem and I went down pleased that my testimony was to be collated, along with the many other pieces of the jigsaw.  As an independent witness, I was sure my testimony would hold additional weight as I had no desire to paint anyone in a good or bad light.

The Interview

I went down to the office and met with the two officers who were to interview me.  They were part of the West Midlands Police, home of the notorious Serious Crime Squad, soon to be disbanded due to their involvement in a series of miscarriages of justice.  None of that was known to me at the time though.

The interview started easily enough, what was my name, my address, who did I go to the match with.  Just background information that was required for the statement.  Then the questioning started and I was asked to detail the day’s events, starting with how I had obtained my ticket and how much I had paid for it.  I explained I bought it from my mate Mike, who got it from his mate.  I paid £8 for it, the price being £6 for the ticket with the difference being for lad to buy himself a drink as a thankyou. 

Interviewer:  So your ticket was from a tout? 

Me:  No, it was from a mate, he got it from a mate, who got it from a player. 

Interviewer:  Why did you pay £8?  It was clearly from a ticket tout. 

Me:  No, I paid £8. £6 was for the ticket and a couple of quid to buy a pint as a thankyou. 

Interviewer:  So who is the ticket tout your mate bought the ticket off?  What’s his name?

Me:  His name is xxxxx, my mate paid him £8. 

Interviewer:  Can we speak to him to verify your story?

Me:  No, he’s dead.

Interviewer:  Dead?

Me:  Yeah, he died at the match….so you can't speak to him no.

The copper was lost for words at this point, recognising I was not going to name xxxxx as a ticket tout.  The guy was dead just three weeks and can’t defend himself.  No way am I labelling him a ticket tout and the copper realises he’s bitten off more than he can chew on this one.

Next up are our drinking habits and the copper asked me to detail mine and my friends alcohol consumption that day.

Me:  What’s that got to do with my evidence? 

Interviewer:  Were you drunk?  You’d been drinking hadn’t you? 

Me:  Yeah, we’d had a drink, but no more than normal.  What’s that got to do with my evidence?  I don’t understand the relevance?

Interviewer:  Look. I’m following guidelines, I can’t take your statement unless you give all the details of the day, including your drinking.   If you don’t tell me, how can we know if your other evidence is reliable?  If you were drunk how can we know you really saw what you claim?

Me:  Ok, if that’s how it works…..

Looking back, the guy was determined to get my drinking detailed, and so it was, the time of our visit to the Nursery Tavern, the quick pint in the Pomona and the stop at an off licence after we got off the bus, were all detailed, all apparently important background evidence.

Next up was our arrival at the stadium. 

Interviewer:  So you were drunk, did you stop to piss anywhere?  You or your mates…?

Me:  We weren’t drunk, we’d had a few pints, nothing over the top.  We went to the toilets in the pub, this is ridiculous….why are you asking me about how much I drank.  I’ve told you we weren’t drunk, we just a few beers.

So we arrived at the top of Leppings Lane, where upon we are met with a crowd of fans….now the fun really starts.  One of my observations I am determined to make is about the conduct of a mounted police officer outside the ground.  Whilst accepting he was trying to control the crowd, at the time, I was so disgusted with his conduct, charging into fans, that I had taken his number with the intention of making a complaint.  I took his number before anyone had died, been injured, so appalled was I at how he and his horse was used in the crowd.  In those days, fans were herded like cattle, and this guy’s actions did nothing other than to agitate fans who were trying to get into the stadium.  He made the crush outside the stadium worse and I was determined that this testimony be recorded, even if the police didn’t want to hear it / record it. 

When I gave these observations, the Policeman’s attitude changed markedly, and he started to contend every point I made.  How could I make a complaint about this guy, when I was clearly drunk?  Why was I complaining about the police…did I have a grudge against them?  I was clearly a student agitator who was “out to get the police”.  He was going to check my criminal record to see if I was a “Criminal with a grudge against the police”  He even questioned whether I was at the match, why did I not have “proper injuries”

The guy decided he didn’t like my evidence and started to aggressively contest every point I made.  On my notes that I had brought with me, he spotted my note that “Some police were drinking tea” – a reference to the many police who did nothing to help with the escape, and to aid he injured.  This observation didn’t go down well and he started to shout at me, that I was just a left wing student and did I know what “Wasting Police time” was? 

Interviewer:  “Yesterday I know what your t-shirt was – Free Nelson Mandela, you are just an agitator out to get us….What is it?  Are you a Socialist Worker?  Workers Revolutionary Party?  I will check, I will be checking which parties you are a member of…you can’t just make accusations against the police and get away with it…

Me:  “You can check all you want, I was at the game, you have my ticket?  What else do you want?

Interviewer:  “Proves nothing, you could have bought that, found it….are you a criminal too, got a grudge against the police?  I will be checking your details and I will be putting together a case against you….wasting police time, false allegations, you want to go to jail?

Me:  You can check all you want, I was at the match, and I will go through the CCTV frame by frame if I have to, I can find myself.

Interviewer:  So what were you wearing?

Me:  Denim jeans and a demin jacket.

Interviewer (sneering):  How convenient.  

The guy was off on one and had decided I was an agitator determined to make trouble for the police.  He told me I was lieing, that my lack of injuries were clear evidence I had not been at the game, that my early escape (I had been lucky to land within feet of the gate on the fence) was not possible, that I could not have been there and that he would be collating my evidence and double checking all the facts.  He even suggested I should leave the interview now and withdraw my statement, or face charges later.

The interview itself took 2 ½ hours to write out 6 pages of testimony.  2 ½ hours…. Why?  Because he didn’t like my testimony, it didn’t meet his expectations.  No my ticket wasn’t from a tout. the observations about the policing, my contention around the conduct of the policeman on the horse, all of this was not treated as my giving evidence, rather it was contended, challenged and was a constant battle and interrogation of my testimony and of my motives.

But the worst was still to come….the biggest problem he had, was my observations was around what I saw outside the ground.  The lack of barriers, no filtering, no police instructions were obvious, but my assertion that this was different to the previous year, was clearly second hand evidence.  I conceded this and so agreed that this was not evidence I could give.  Fair enough, but now he sought to contend my other observations, that clearly were relevant and were first hand.

What I saw on arriving at Leppings Lane was simple, some fans, a handful, were climbing over the turnstiles, over the top, about 8ft tall, and were then jumping down into the area behind inside the stadium.  This was done for two reasons, firstly the flow through the turnstiles seemed to have ground to a halt, and secondly, a dangerous crush was developing outside the stadium around the turnstile area.

The fans climbing over, were doing so with the consent of the police, some police officers, aware of the growing dangers, were helping pull fans up onto the turnstiles and were helping them down again.  The fans showed their tickets and no-one was stopped doing this.  It was done with both the consent and assistance of the police.  That is what I saw and how I described it.

Interviewer:  So you saw unauthorised entry into the stadium. 

Me:  No, I saw fans climbing over the tunstiles, with the consent of, and help of the police.

Interviewer:  So that was unauthorised entry, you are supposed to go through the turnstiles.

Me:  But it was with the consent of the police.  People were getting crushed and the police were helping them escape that crush.  That is not unauthorised entry.

We went back and forth for 10 minutes, my refusing absolutely to agree that I had seen or witnessed unauthorised entry.

Me:  No one broke in, all the people were doing was escaping a crush.  The police were helping them over. 

Interviewer:  How many did you see?

Looking back now, I remember the most at any given point was 1 or 2 fams.  There was no steam of fans, just a few getting up and over as best they could. 

So was my statement a true reflection?

My typed up statement says the following:

“At this stage I saw approx, fifty fans climbing over the side of the turnstiles”

Contrast this to my mates observation in his statement:

"I only saw one or two making entry in this way"

How is it that my statement records that I saw 50 fans climbing over, when I saw and said nothing of that kind?  There is no way is that what I saw or what I said. The only conclusion I can draw is that the police changed the tenant on what I said to misrepresent the facts.

Police writing on statement

My second specific complaint around my statement is that my statement has a hand written note that says

In L/L (Leppings Lane) witnessed unauthorised entry

This was absolutely not what I said in my statement and I had spent 10 minutes denying that was that I saw.  To write that comment on my statement is a complete lie as that is not what I said I had witnessed.

This is really important as the police were building a case of ticketless drunk fans “breaking into” the stadium.  Not only did the police change the observed number of fans I saw climbing over, but they changed the central tenant of what I saw, from entering with police consent to "unauthorised entry".

Wrapping up the interview:

The badgering, accusations and sneering continued for the rest of my interview and I think it did have an effect on my evidence.  For example one thing I remember well, wasn’t just that the police were slow to help people, they were initially actually trying to stop people escape the crush inside the stadium.  The police were pushing people back over the fence, kept the gates closed.  When I escaped through the front gate the policeman was trying to push the gate shut…he did close it after me.  This despite the cries and pleas of dieing fans.

None of that really made it fully into my statement; instead I was at the point of just wanting to get out of the interview, worn down and intimidated by the accusations and threats from the police interviewer. 

I was left thinking I was going to be investigated and possibly charged with "wasting police time".  The policeman told me he would later check my criminal record, my political affiliations and would look to cross check all my evidence against other people.  He would put together a case for consideration of “wasting police time”, though I didn’t have to sign my statement if I didn’t want to.

In my letter home, I asked my mother to ask my brother to keep my match programmes I had sent him, as this was one piece of evidence to back up my testimony….a clear indication that I was left with the impression that I was to be investigated further.

The compliant to the Geoffrey Dear

Unknown to me, my mother passed on copies of my letters home to a family friend, my Godfather, recently retired Chief Superintendent of the Special branch.  Concerned at my treatment he wrote a letter to Geoffrey Dear highlighting that I was neither a left wing agitator nor was I a criminal bearing a grudge. 

Following this complaint, the two officers involved (one of whom had said very little in the interview, other than to apologise for the conduct of the lead interviewer) both said that they felt I was “anti police” and doubted my testimony due to “inconsistencies” 

They also made reference to my “left wing type t-shirt"

No one spoke to me about the interview and/or apologised for their conduct.

Impact:

I feel that my evidence was changed.  I know I was threatened and intimidated and that some things I wanted to record were never recorded.

My evidence was mispresented as having seen “unauthorised entry” into the stadium despite my making clear I had seen no such thing

My evidence was both misrepresented and altered and I think my statement clearly had the potential to be used to back up the false allegations of fans “Breaking into” the stadium which the police wanted to make.  
--------------------