Bosch

[/color] I don't recall these 'appeals for a degree of balance to be applied' when the 'trial by headline and media soundbite' was being orchestrated by Middup and his colleagues. Regardless of what alleged wrongs went before, are you suggesting there is no place for an objective balance to be applied with the current disclosures? If so I find that hard to accept. As I said previously, the HIP is a truth, not the truth. The appropriate scrutiny and investigation will now show whether 'Middup and his colleagues' as is suggested in the HIP did indeed orchestrate anything. We (including you) don't know the answer to that question yet.

I don't wish to try to discredit anyone. I would simply appeal for a degree of balance to be applied. We have had various 'truths' since 1989. The Taylor Report, the Coroners Inquest, the Judicial Scrutiny by Stuart Smith, a failed private prosecution in the Civil Court and I believe similiar with European Courts. The Hillsborough Independent Panel has now produced another 'truth'. There is no secret that the primary author of the HIP is Professor Phil Scraton (the same academic who published his own book over a decade prior to the HIP - Hillsborough the Truth in 1999). He has worked tirelessly in close conjunction with the families behalf for many years. There are very important issues which have been raised through the Panel's work. I don't for one moment suggest that there is anything untoward in the Panels (or Professor Scraton's) work but the term 'independent' is a little deceiving. At present The HIP Report represents 'a truth' not 'the truth'. Appropriate, lawful and objective scrutiny will now follow (not trial by headline and media soundbite). Until then, in the interests of balance, we should all retain the right to question any evidence that is held up as key.

You cannot possibly know that no one saw this. Not everyone has been on the record yet, or asked to be, and just because it doesn't appear in the statements of others doesn't mean it didn't happen. The HIP researched 450,000 pages of documents. No mention of a forced entry to the Kop by Forest fans? Except for one person. The same person who is/has been one of the KEY witnesses to one of the most crucial aspects of the day. Do you not think someone/anyone would have thought it pertinent and relevant to the various inquiries to mention that there was a substantial influx of fans at the opposite end of the ground and before the tragic events at the other end?

Isn't that why she was bullied in to changing her statement? Because of your bold? I think you're clutching at straws here. Cases in recent years have also taught us to be very wary indeed of 'pathological findings', or should I say, 'who "finds" the findings'. Bullied into changing her statement? She gave 3 statements in total. Lord Justice Stuart Smith’s doubts about her reliability relate to her first statement from 1989. Interestingly she gave a third statement in the presence of the Hillsborough Families solicitor in 1995 reiterating that her first statement was accurate! The allegation of bullying related to her second statement in 1990. At the match she was working at the Spion kop end (the opposite to where the tragedy occurred). Her evidence includes matters which no one amongst the 54,000 fans or 1,000 police officers saw! Only she reports: Lots of trouble with drunken Forest fans, mounted police being forced against a wall, a ground invasion by lots of Forest fans, through a large blue gate near to the gymnasium at the Kop end. This invasion is so strong that she is lifted off her feet up and carried into the ground in the surge. The gates are locked with her in the ground! ‘Miss Martin is the only witness who speaks of a crowd of disorderly Nottingham Forest fans surging through a blue gate at the Penistone Road end’ - Justice Stuart Smith Then she manages to force her way back out of the Kop and to go around the ground to the Leppings Lane end where the same thing is happening but on a larger scale. She is able to make her way in through those gates and to get onto the pitch. Stuart Smith actually interviewed her in person as part of scrutiny (in the company of Phil Scraton). ‘She told me in her interview that she had felt Kevin Williams’ pulse and felt a faint one. I can find no trace of her ever having said that before’. He concluded - In my judgement Debra Martin cannot be regarded as a reliable witness. Clutching at straws? Who finds the findings? Quite true - The latest 'findings' are the interpretation of the Hillsborough Independent Panel.

Do you consider the use of the name 'Nazi's' appropriate for the police service in this context? Do they really compare to the Racists, Mass murderers, war criminals who waged aggressive war across the world? A knighthood for Deborah Martin? Lord Justice Stuart Smith in his Scrutiny Report following his investigation and review of the disaster in 1998 had this to say: I did not find Miss Martin a reliable witness. Her statement about events at Hillsborough, where she was on duty as a Special Constable, was seriously at variance with the account of everybody else who was there. She remains plainly - and understandably - deeply upset by the disaster, and her memories of the day and of subsequent events relating to it are vague and confused. I think that she gave her account of Kevin Williams sitting up in her arms and saying ’Mom’ in good faith. But it cannot be relied upon. It contradicts Mr Bruder’s evidence and is also contrary to the pathological findings. ---------- Post added 19-12-2012 at 23:30 ---------- From previous posts - He was an honest PC just trying to do his job....... It was on Wednesday 12 September of this year that The Independent revealed on its front page the neat crossings and the diagonal line struck through his statement, part of a systematic doctoring of statements which the Hillsborough Independent Panel revealed in its entirety, the following day. The truth McLoughlin had told, the criticisms he had made, had been edited out of history. His statement is available on the HIP site - SYP000074180001 This ex officer has been very vocal and visible in the media following the HIP report. The lengthy article in the Independent mentions his involvement on the day and makes reference to his actions inside the ground near the pens. The link takes you to his statement actually signed by him and a version with amendments. In the interest of balance there are some points of interest. All his evidence about the difficulties in other parts of the ground is exclusively based on listening to garbled messages on a colleagues radio. His statement is annotated - 'South Stand car park not involved in disaster events'. In no way wishing to decry his involvement it seems that he did not enter the ground at any stage of events except for briefing and debriefing!

It has always been Look Leeds