Research methodology

¶As stated above, a priority for the Panel's work was to show how the disclosed documents contribute to public understanding of the disaster. It was important, therefore, to review 'what was known' in the public domain, from previous investigations, inquiries and research into and publications about the disaster. This review forms Part 1 of the Report.

¶Part 2 is concerned with 'what the disclosed documents add to public understanding', reflecting the context, circumstances and consequences of the disaster and its investigation. It also responds to the questions asked and issues raised by bereaved families in consultation with the Panel.

¶Having established the key focuses for the research, the Panel accessed, digitised and researched the documents accordingly. This involved a methodical content analysis of all documents and other material disclosed to the Panel. The documents, therefore, provided the foundation for the extensive, cross-referenced data that then formed the detail of the Report.

¶The Panel read all the disclosed documents in unredacted form. Redaction of documents, or their removal from public access, has been agreed by the Panel only in exceptional circumstances (see Appendix 2). The main reason for redaction or non-disclosure is privacy relating to personal information, particularly medical records. Names of junior members of staff within organisations have also been redacted.

¶Extensive primary data was drawn from the documents, then was further analysed and cross-referenced to present a detailed narrative within each chapter. Inevitably the chapters also rely on documents and material already in the public domain in order to provide a coherent, analytical narrative.

389

¶Regarding the circumstances and immediate aftermath of the disaster, cross-referencing of content was developed chronologically to construct a comprehensive sequence of events, reflecting the exchange of information between organisations prior to and after the disaster. This included detailed consideration of the decisions taken by relevant organisations regarding crowd management, crowd safety and structural modifications within the stadium throughout the 1980s.

¶The Panel also focused on issues concerning rescue and the emergency response. In examining the emergency response to the disaster, the Panel's approach was consistent with the analysis of disclosed documents as conducted for other chapters. Cross-referencing of a wide variety of sources in chronological order constructed a comprehensive sequence of events as the disaster unfolded. This enabled eye-witness accounts to be located in context.

¶Occasionally, timings of events in statements or other documents conflict with timings derived from radio transcripts. In these instances the transcripts, which are timed verbatim records of every telephone call and radio transmission, were considered definitive.

Disclosure and access to documents

¶The initial phase of the research was conducted on hard-copy original or photocopied documents held in Sheffield or at the Home Office. The next phase of the content analysis was conducted by accessing the digitised versions of documents held on a secure site.

¶While all documents disclosed to the Panel are not referenced specifically in the Report, each document has been reviewed and analysed as part of the research process. The Panel is aware that some documents include personal opinions of individuals, and statements about individuals, where those concerned have not had the opportunity to respond to comments or criticism. In reading the disclosed documents it is important to be sensitive to this situation.

Medical evidence

¶The assessment of the evidence on causation of death, central to the preliminary hearings or mini-inquests, was based primarily on the records of the post mortem examinations carried out on the deceased. These records are personal medical records, and as such have been treated as confidential by the Panel.

¶Because of the significance of this evidence and the concerns raised by bereaved families, the Panel's medically qualified member scrutinised the records, summarising their content in aggregate. This scrutiny revealed features previously the subject of comment in individual cases but that had not been assessed. The Panel received the helpful advice of a highly experienced and senior professor of forensic pathology.

¶The disclosed post mortem reports revealed a broad pattern of evidence of prolonged survival in a substantial proportion of the deceased (see Chapter 5). The outcome for those alive but unconscious due to partial asphyxiation was dependent on what happened to them during this period, including the prompt availability of properly equipped first-aid personnel and correct positioning.

390

¶The material disclosed to the Panel included the schedule of original data that had been used for an analysis which resulted in a claim that there was a link between later arrival in the ground and a raised blood alcohol level amongst the deceased. Initially, the Panel reproduced the original analysis, the results of which are described in detail in Chapter 5. Prompted by the results it carried out further analysis of the original data.

Factual accuracy checking

¶A process of factual accuracy checking was conducted with South Yorkshire Police, the South Yorkshire West District Coroner, Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Sheffield City Council as the main contributing organisations. Each organisation was provided with sections of text showing extracts from the documents it provided to ensure that the text was a factually accurate representation.

¶The contributing organisations met with Panel members to discuss the text, but were not given hard copy or online access outside the meetings. In keeping with the principle of 'families first', under which the bereaved families are the first to access the Panel's Report, the contributing organisations were not provided with the Panel's interpretations of the documents.

¶Where appropriate, and based only on factual accuracy rather than interpretation, modifications were made to the text. Objections raised that were considered as matters of interpretation were discounted. The Panel is grateful to the main contributing organisations for their participation in this process.

391