• Liverpool Message Board

  • Eric Cantona Eric Cantona Sep 13, 2012 11:37 Flag

    3:15 cut off

    Can someone explain the implications of the 3:15 cut off?

    Was this an arbitrary time chosen by the coroner or did the police/stadium authorities stop medical help from being brought on to the pitch at that point?

    I'm trying to understand what stopped the 41 or so people being probably saved. I can't imagine medical staff working on someone just stopping at 3:15 and walking away.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • It would seem that way wouldn't it? That the emergency serves were told to stop at 3.15.. Which is damning..

      • 1 Reply to LFC_Armchair_Supporter
      • Oh, FFS!

        Yes, it would be damning if it was true. But it's about as far from the truth as could be.

        armchair, PLEASE go and read about the subject before you type your comments on it. I have lost count of the number of times I have suggested you read the Taylor interim report. You plainly never have. Taylor goes into lots of detail of what the emergency services were doing after 3:15. Read about it.

        I said a few days ago that I thought people who hadn't read Taylor were not competent to pontificate on the subject. You are the prime example of that.


    • Couple points I think. First it's clear the coroner was comfortable with the 3:15 cutoff because all injuries were sustained before that time and the injuries were inevitable fatal. The new evidence is the question of inevitability is now open.

      Second I'm not sure the coroners role is simply to find cause of death . Instead it's to find the legal cause of death and render a verdict. What is in question is the medical cause of death which new evidence suggests was not inevitable, which leads to the question of if the verdict should be accidental.

    • Robert M...Sorry if I implied that any individual members of the emergency services present on the day should be prosecuted what I was refering to was the FACT revealed recently of a MASSIVE COVER-UP by South Yorkshire Police and I was suggesting that as soon as the previous coroners verdict is quashed and a new verdict delivered then all members of South Yorkshire Police AND any politicianlocal or national who may have been complicit where the conspiracy to shift blame via ammendment or alteration of signed statements should be prosecuted for their criminal acts asap...eg conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

    • I think the Coroner's answer to that would be along the lines of his job was not to serve the interest of anyone in particular but simply to determine the cause of death.

      2.10.33 "Dr Popper noted...families have completely misunderstood ... What the objects of an inquest are."

      2.10.47 "the fact that the person may survive an injury for a number of minutes of hours or even days is not the question which I as a Coroner have to consider"

      2.10.106 Dr Popper stated he was "not saying that the medical people couldn't have been called sooner; that more could not have been done ... It is possible that better quality care could have been achieved". The inquests' purpose, however, was to establish the cause of death "of these poor, unfortunate people" and he did not "think it was medical care; it was crushing".

      Given this, wasn't it more the job of the Taylor report to investigate the why people died, and the job of the WMP to determine whether there should have been prosecutions?


    • I sincerely hope both Liverpool and United fans do not sing songs about Hillsborough, Heysel , or Munich in the game next weekend. I also sincerely hope scumbags who do resort to doing it are quickly made to stop by decent fans. There should be no turning the other way.

    • Robert I've I don't think suggested mischief on the part of the coroner. However his verdict is something that underpins the ability to move things forward in terms of the family’s ultimate desire, to find justice.

      With a verdict of Accidental death, one assumes the deaths were not preventable, when in fact it seems there is plenty of evidence to suggest all along (and much of it coming from the Taylor report) that this was not an accident but a preventable disaster.

      Additionally the 3:15 cut off means the inquest did not or could not look at the response, and whether due to inadequacies or mistakes it contributed to lives that might (I do stress might) have been saved, not being saved, and if those mistakes or inadequacies rise to the level of negligence.

      Another thing to consider here is the timeline. But the time the inquest convened the decision to not proceed with prosecutions had already been made. I'm not sure that is normal, but it would seem to me that cause of death is something you need prior to deciding if a crime has been committed. Again I’m not suggesting any mischief on behalf of the coroner, but I do think it raises questions, as the verdict of accidental death really allows those who it now looks have potential culpability to walk away.

      My own opinion based on the reading I’ve done so far is that the inquest may have been manipulated to ensure a satisfactory outcome. That seems to be the reports suggestion from documentation from SYP who felt the inquest would exonerate them, where the Taylor report had not. Again that is not deliberate mischief by the Coroner, however it seems to me in hindsight he did not serve the best interests of the victims, and may instead served the interests of those who should have been responsible.

    • Try chapter 5, around section 62 on.

      The report is not saying 41 people could have been saved, but up to 41 people may not have been either dead, or beyond resuscitation at 3:15.

      It's not saying 41 could have survived, but the point is if only 1 life could have been saved, then the 3:15 cut off should be removed. We'll never know whether 1 more, or no lives could have been saved, however the evidence in chapter 5 states it’s an open question, therefore worthy of investigation, putting into real question the verdict of the inquest.

      It seems to me the relevant point here to move the investigation forward is the fact the verdict of Accidental death needs to be overturned. It seems to me there is enough evidence before 3:15 to suggest this was not an accident but a preventable event caused and then exacerbated by either incompetence and or negligence, which should turn over the verdict. However this argument has not worked in the past.

      The importance of the 3:15 cut off is that if just one life could have been saved but was not due to the poor response (again imo down to incompetence and or negligence) then the response needs to be considered, meaning the 3:15 cut off has unnecessarily limited the scope of the inquest, and potentially caused in incorrect verdict. That is grounds for quashing it, and entering into a new inquest without a cut off time, that does consider the response and its implications on potential loss of savable life.

    • Quote from the conference which answers your question:

      Dr Bill Kirkup, a medical member of the review group, told a press conference: "Twenty eight people had definite evidence that they didn't have obstruction of the bloodflow, 16 people had definite evidence of heart and lungs continuing to function for a prolonged period after the crush.
      "In total 41 therefore had evidence that they had potential to survive after the period of 3.15.
      "What I can't say is how many of them could, in actuality, have been saved.
      "But I can say is that, potentially, it was in that order of magnitude."

    • "The introduction to the report has some stuff about pressure being put on police people to change their tunes. I imagine one of the other chapters goes into it in great detail." - it's Chapter 11.

      How about this for leaning on someone! Para 1.243 says "[Police] Officers were visited by members of an internally appointed SYP [South Yorkshire Police] team and their agreement to the alterations secured. They were expected to sign the amended recollections as formal statements."

      No pressure there then to stop anything that might rock the boat.

    • Put this in a reply below but it's worth repeating here. There was certainly one person accordingto Channel 4 news last night. That person passed away at 3:50 according to the WPC that was tending to him. Had that person received medical attention they would have mst likely survived but that's another story.

      The alarming this is the WPC in question was visited by a police colleague and her statement was revised in line with the 3:15 time.

      The scale of this and the horrific stories continue to frighten me!

    • View More Messages