Hillsborough document release

[Mr Bloom]

what does that make the judge referencing her as unreliable ?

 

This was also my immediate thought.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2012 at 09:01 ----------

 

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.

 

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.

 

We both know I was referring to the 'pathological findings' in your quote....Mr Tomlinson, anyone? Oh, and look, it was another one where the police had a hand in it!

 

And anyway, who do these pathologists work for? The police? The coroners office? Both?

Edited December 21, 2012 by Mr Bloom

[Hemibr]

This was also my immediate thought.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2012 at 09:01 ----------

 

 

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.

 

We both know I was referring to the 'pathological findings' in your quote....Mr Tomlinson, anyone? Oh, and look, it was another one where the police had a hand in it!

 

And anyway, who do these pathologists work for? The police? The coroners office? Both?

 

I have had the personal misfortune to be victim in a case where a legal challenge made by respondent barrister meant that a number of evidential items were never considered -

 

Not dissimilar to applying a 3 15 cut off time at Hillsborough.

 

Common sense tells me that looking at half the evidence gets you halfway to the truth and if that is how th law works at the impartial judiciary level then god help the justice system.

 

In my case the police were instructed to recover the unconsidered evidence for processing via criminal courts due to the consequential perverse justice of considering only one sides evidence and luckily the barrister making the initial challenge also offered to give evidence as a witness.

 

The key perjuring witness was ex police and as we now know they tend to be immune from criminal prosecution but lets give Shaun Wright a chance - maybe he can find the time to collect the evidence offered by the barrister from Bank Street.

 

Camerons government since plebgate seem to be awakening to the actualities of the police antics and perhaps a few will step back into line once the criminal immunity has been re assessed by a few honest impartial judiciary.

 

At the moment the presiding judge making the comments on Deborah Martin would be better employed in the electoral system if majorities are what he goes on and whatever McAlpine finishes up with then i hope Debora Martin does too.

 

Hope thats not too radical as i look a bit like a Brazillian commuter.

[Bosch]

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?

[Mr Bloom]

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?

 

I'm not sure why you seem to wish to 'discredit' Ms Martin, but there is no doubt that her evidence has helped to ensure that cases are re-investigated, and for me, that in itself, can only be a good thing.

[Michael_W]

It is probably very sadly true that some minds are not open. I hope not many.

 

At the moment the families want a fresh inquest. After that? What they want will be up to them. I would imagine they want those responsible for the crimes and other injustices they have had perpetrated against them to be held accountable. Pretty much what most of us would want. How many of us would accept the truth and an apology alone if a crime was committed against us? Especially one that resulted in the death of a loved one? Is accountability an unreasonable expectation?

 

You can find out more here http://hfsg.co.uk/

 

There is no mind more closed on this subject than yours mike, your copy and paste agenda and self righteous need for people to substantiate things because they have an opinion different to yours. Accountability is all well and good when everyone holds their hands up and that will never happen ..... typically in current day fashion the witchunt has found a few out to scapegoat and to use as closure on the subject politically !

[mikem8634]

There is no mind more closed on this subject than yours mike, your copy and paste agenda and self righteous need for people to substantiate things because they have an opinion different to yours. Accountability is all well and good when everyone holds their hands up and that will never happen ..... typically in current day fashion the witchunt has found a few out to scapegoat and to use as closure on the subject politically !

 

It is a shame you believe that. I have said before that had the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report presented a negative view of the conduct of Liverpool fans on that day that was substantiated by evidence it would have broken my heart but I would have been compelled, through reason and logic, to accept it nonetheless.

 

I have indeed asked people on this thread (and others) many times to provide evidence to back up what they say and will continue to do so. Why is that self-righteous?

 

Are concepts such as evidence, corroboration and substantiation somehow a bad thing?

 

Why should I not ask people whose opinions differ from mine to provide evidence to substantiate those opinions? Is that not all part of reasoned debate?

 

Do you think you should be allowed to make statements that go unchallenged? If so, why so?

 

I'll consider and review anybody's evidence. If I can refute it with counter evidence or contextualisation I will, if not then I will hold my hands up.

 

In short, if you have a point of view that cannot stand up to scrutiny what does that say about it?

[LeMaquis]

I think we have enough enquiries being touted don't we, Hillsborough, Saville now he wants Orgreave, all at a cost of millions to the public no doubt.

 

There is no mind more closed on this subject than yours mike.....

 

Someone who has already stated that he doesn't want inquiries into alleged paedophilia as well as Hillsborough BECAUSE OF THE COST accuses someone else of having a closed mind.

 

The state shouldn't investigate paedophilia because of the cost? Now why would anyone think that?

[Michael_W]

Someone who has already stated that he doesn't want inquiries into alleged paedophilia as well as Hillsborough BECAUSE OF THE COST accuses someone else of having a closed mind.

 

The state shouldn't investigate paedophilia because of the cost? Now why would anyone think that?

 

It's not about me not wanting enquiries, costly enquiries will not prevent Saville or Hillsborough, Saville was up to no good over 30 years ago and is now dead, Hillsborough was 23 years ago and no enquiry is ever going to change what happened that day or bring anyones loved one back.

The wrongs revealed in the HIP report were mainly done after the event ..... statement changes, media reports and influential individuals who gave opinion that has offended.

As for your daft suggestive statement aimed at me about what anyone would think, well that's not even worthy of an answer .... idiot !

[mikem8634]

As for your daft suggestive statement aimed at me about what anyone would think, well that's not even worthy of an answer .... idiot !

 

Aah, yes, insults, the hallmark of every intelligent argument.

 

There is no mind more closed on this subject than yours mike, your copy and paste agenda and self righteous need for people to substantiate things because they have an opinion different to yours.

 

You have a problem with me asking others to back up their opinions with evidence yet a cursory search of your previous posts reveals the following -

You have made a hell of an assumption there bf ..... I'm sorry but that's just not on, please ask the pedantic duo JFK and Heading North next time, or back up your claims with some facts ...... you can search google if you like

[Michael_W]

Aah, yes, insults, the hallmark of every intelligent argument.

 

In relation to what he suggested in his post he is mikem OK !

 

You have a problem with me asking others to back up their opinions with evidence yet a cursory search of your previous posts reveals the following -

 

Now your quoting things to take them out of the context in which they were posted, you do not know the history of arguments between posters on here, so you don't know in what context I posted that OK !

Look through all my posts and find stuff to suit your argument mikem, I think your a tad pedantic, repetative and sad pal ..... take that as an insult if you like