You make whole load of very valid points very well made....

Personally I still stick to my view that if Duckinfield had any real idea of the situation and the obvious danger to life he would not have ordered the pens to be opened. He was not aware of the danger of the situation (down to his incompetence or the incompetence of whoever put him in charge that day) and hence cannot easily be found guilty.

However why was he not separately taken to trial for his part in the 'cover up'?

On that aspect he seems clearly guilty, although I suspect competence - or the lack of it - would be the argument. He panicked after the event and clutched at any straws he could find as he knew his actions (albeit unintended) had caused the deaths.

Interestingly I was at Villa Pk that day for us v Everton in the other semi.

Posted By: Saucerer, Nov 28, 19:36:05