This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hillsborough-disaster-verdict-unlawful-killing-david-duckenfield-ruling-by-inquests-jury-over-1989-a7001276.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Hillsborough disaster verdict: 'Unlawful killing' ruling by inquests jury over 1989 football deaths Hillsborough disaster verdict: 'Unlawful killing' ruling by inquests jury over 1989 football deaths
(35 minutes later)
The Hillsborough inquests jury has found the 96 victims of the 1989 disaster were unlawfully killed – a verdict which could see former South Yorkshire Police chief superintendent and match commander David Duckenfield stand trial for manslaughter.The Hillsborough inquests jury has found the 96 victims of the 1989 disaster were unlawfully killed – a verdict which could see former South Yorkshire Police chief superintendent and match commander David Duckenfield stand trial for manslaughter.
The damning verdict, one of 14 conclusions reached by the jury of nine, is vindication in the 27-year fight for justice by families of those who died at Sheffield Wednesday’s football ground, on whom Mr Duckenfield tried to shift  the blame by accusing them of forcing a gate to cause the crush.The damning verdict, one of 14 conclusions reached by the jury of nine, is vindication in the 27-year fight for justice by families of those who died at Sheffield Wednesday’s football ground, on whom Mr Duckenfield tried to shift  the blame by accusing them of forcing a gate to cause the crush.
The jury forewoman replied “yes, by a majority” when coroner Sir John Goldring asked her: “Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed?”. When coroner Sir John Goldring asked the jury forewoman: “Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed?”, she replied “yes, by a majority” 
The answer to the much-anticipated ‘Question Six’ does not carry a direct legal consequence because the criminal investigation into the disaster is working independently of the inquests. Follow the latest live updates here
But solicitors for the families of the 96 believe it will make a gross negligence manslaughter charge more likely. The answer to the much-anticipated ‘Question Six’ - returned on a 7-2 majority - does not carry a direct legal consequence because the criminal investigation into the disaster is working independently of the inquests.
But solicitors for the families of the 96 believe it will make a gross negligence manslaughter charge more likely - and both a team of police detectives and investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said they would submit files to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) if there was enough evidence for potential prosecutions.
In the outcome which the families had hoped for, the jury also absolved supporters of any blame for the events of April 15 1989 – despite a concerted attempt by South Yorkshire Police to gather evidence proving drunkenness and disorder lay behind the tragedy at the Leppings Lane terrace.In the outcome which the families had hoped for, the jury also absolved supporters of any blame for the events of April 15 1989 – despite a concerted attempt by South Yorkshire Police to gather evidence proving drunkenness and disorder lay behind the tragedy at the Leppings Lane terrace.
Asked whether the jury’s verdict was no to the question: “Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?” the forewoman answered: “It was.”Asked whether the jury’s verdict was no to the question: “Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?” the forewoman answered: “It was.”
In court, there were cheers of delight at that response and shouts of “thank you” and “hallelujah".In court, there were cheers of delight at that response and shouts of “thank you” and “hallelujah".
But the cheers were almost as loud for the conclusion that supporters had played not part whatsoever in the disaster. Families sobbed. The pressure felt by the jury forewoman was also obvious.But the cheers were almost as loud for the conclusion that supporters had played not part whatsoever in the disaster. Families sobbed. The pressure felt by the jury forewoman was also obvious.
The Hillsborough disaster unfolded during Liverpool's FA Cup semi-final match against Nottingham Forest as thousands of fans were crushed at Sheffield Wednesday's ground.
Mr Duckenfield gave the order at 2.52pm to open exit Gate C in Leppings Lane, allowing around 2,000 fans to flood into the already packed central pens behind the goal.
More follows...More follows...