Families’ experiences of the identification process

1. Family members and friends, and the volunteers and care professionals who accompanied them, have raised a range of concerns about both the agreed process and the way it was carried out. These began with the fact that many were transported to the gymnasium by bus, with no idea of what to expect. Once they arrived, they had to queue outside; with numbers inside strictly controlled, some had to wait for a long time on what was becoming an increasingly cold evening. Recognising this, a British Red Cross volunteer returned to his headquarters and collected about 30 blankets to hand out to people as they arrived.
    
2. A member of the clergy insisted to the police that families should not have to wait outside and instigated a different system, where families could wait indoors and be supported. Despite his efforts, Operation Resolve has confirmed that the gymnasium did not meet the standards set out in the SYP Major Incident Manual, as the waiting area did not have telephone and toilet facilities available for the families.

The decision to use photographs and its impact on families and friends

1. The decision to ask families and friends to identify their loved ones from a photograph in the first instance was designed to avoid them having the traumatic experience of looking at a large number of bodies. Dr Popper explained it in his opening remarks at the individual inquests in April 1990, saying he took responsibility and added: “Of course it wasn’t nice, but it was the best I could think of, if you like, at the time and I still think it was the right decision.” In a statement to Operation Resolve and the IOPC in 2014, Dr Popper described it as “one of the few good ideas I had.”
    
2. Viewing the photographs was nonetheless harrowing. Some groups went in with no idea of what they were going to see. The photographs were ordered numerically, based on the identification numbers allocated by SYP; there was no separation or grouping of any sort, so families had to look at them all. To aid the process, police officers could have selected pictures of young males for certain groups, or selected only females, so that families and friends did not have to look at all of the photos. Operation Resolve found no evidence to suggest that officers considered this.
    
3. Some of those who had to look at the boards have also commented on the impact of seeing how many people had died. This was particularly true for those in the earliest stages of identification, when the boards were full; once an individual was identified, their photograph was removed.
    
4. The injuries some individuals had suffered meant that in some cases family members did not immediately recognise their loved ones in the photographs. On occasion this led to officers prompting them to look again, appearing to suggest that the officers already knew the identity of some of those who had died by the time family members or friends were asked to make the identification.
    
5. Francis Tyrell’s son Kevin died in the disaster. When they arrived at the gymnasium, Mr Tyrell and his family were asked to look at the photographs. In a statement made to WMP, Mr Tyrell recalled the horror of this, commenting that in some cases, people’s faces were so swollen and bruised that it was difficult to recognise any features.
    
6. He said that they looked at the photographs carefully but did not recognise Kevin. They thought one of the photographs might have been him; a police officer went away to check and returned after 10 minutes and told them that it was not. They were then asked to take a second look at the boards. 
    
7. On their second viewing, there was a person they thought might have been Kevin, but they could not recall him wearing the clothing shown in the photograph. Mr Tyrell said that the police officer went away to check and when he returned this time, he told them that it was Kevin; there had been a coach ticket in his possession which bore his surname and address. 
    
8. Mr Tyrrell said it immediately became clear that the police had known all along his son had been in the mortuary. He said that he could not understand why they had been put through so much suffering, when it was clear that the police already knew that Kevin had died.
    
9. In a 2015 account, he recalled that he twice went to a police officer with a number, thinking it might be his son, but it was not, so he told the police officer, “well he isn't there”. He added: “I had not recognised him, partly because I was in desperate denial, partly because his face was unrecognisable and I was thrown by what looked like a black t-shirt under his outer shirt, when in fact it was his navy ‘Nike’ jumper. To this day I do not understand why we were forced to go through this horrendous and cruel process.”
    
10. Mr Tyrell was one of several people who questioned why they had to go through the process of looking at the boards when the police already knew, or had a good idea, of the identity of some of those who died.
     
11. Joseph Hughes went to the gymnasium with a number of friends looking for their friend Alan Johnston. He couldn’t see him on the boards, but an officer asked him to take another look, paying particular attention to one of the numbered photos. He realised it was Alan, and that the police would have known this because Alan had photographic ID in his pocket.
     
12. In a letter written in 1990, Margaret Aspinall asked why nobody in Sheffield had notified her family about the death of her son James sooner, as he had a bus pass bearing his photograph, name and address in his possession. She said that her husband had to go to Sheffield in the early hours of 16 April to identify their son and then phone the family, when using the bus pass could have spared them a night of anguish.
     
13. Evidence from police officers in the gymnasium indicates that they searched most of those who had died, and that several other individuals were provisionally identified using personal property. Property was also documented in ledgers used for this purpose. Operation Resolve has reviewed the lists of personal possessions for all those who died in the disaster and established that at least 25 individuals had items in their possession which may have helped identify them. These items ranged from papers or cards bearing a name, and in some cases an address, such as a driving licence, to photographic identification such as a bus pass or rail card.
     
14. Dr Popper and some of the senior detectives have emphasised that, even though the property may have helped identify individuals, they did not feel they could rely on it. D Supt McKay pointed out that it would be worse to misidentify someone as dead, based on property. D Ch Supt Addis said that while he had asked that officers search those who died to try to find identification, no officer came to him with a positive identification based on property.
     
15. The Interpol Manual on Disaster Victim Identification was the official guidance in use in England in 1989 relating to methods of identification in a disaster or major incident. It advised that property was “valuable circumstantial evidence of identity, but never proof.” This therefore supports Dr Popper and SYP in saying they could not rely on it. Indeed, property would not necessarily be accepted as proof of identity of someone who had died today. Nonetheless, there was still the potential to have used the property more directly to assist with the identification process.

The requirement to re-identify those who died 

1. There were a number of instances where family members and friends had already identified their loved one before the formal process began, and this was recorded in some way by SYP. Despite this, the families still had to go through the full process, including the requirement to view the boards of photographs.
    
2. For example, despite having identified his daughter Victoria twice at the hospital, Mr Hicks was required to identify her again at the gymnasium.
    
3. John McCarthy had been at the game with his brothers, Ian and Joseph (Joe) Glover, who were in the West Terrace. Mr McCarthy was in the North Stand. In a statement made in 2013, Mr McCarthy described how, after the match was stopped, one of his friends led him to Joe, who was kneeling by the wall outside the gymnasium in tears. Joe told him that Ian was inside. With the help of some of their friends, they persuaded the officers at the gymnasium door to let them in, and they found Ian. Mr McCarthy described how he was holding Ian, when a police officer came over to them and told them there was nothing they could do.
    
4. Mr McCarthy and Joe were then taken to Barnsley General Hospital where they were joined by their father. From there they went to the Boys’ Club and were later taken by bus back to the gymnasium to make a formal identification. Mr McCarthy said: 
   
   “Outside the gym, there was a wall with photographs of the dead on it. We had identified Ian earlier and they had put a tag on him, however we were still made to look at all the photographs. At first I did not go over to the board. My Dad and Joe were looking for Ian on the photographs and they could not find him. I went over and picked out Ian's photograph straightaway number 37. I will never forget that my Dad said that that was not Ian. He either didn't recognise him or he didn't want to, I don't know which. We went inside the gym and Ian was wheeled out on a trolley. There was an old jumper covering his face. My Dad went mad. There was a priest in there and he gave Ian the last rites. I looked at Ian once and then had to turn away. I had already seen him.”
    
5. Brian Anderson attended the match with his father, John Alfred Anderson (known to his family as Jack), who died in the disaster. The identification statement he gave on the evening of the disaster clearly described how he had to identify his father twice, to the same officer. The first time was behind the West Stand, where he saw some people lying on the floor with their faces covered. He stated: “I was looking at the bodies to see if I could find my father and saw that he was in fact one of them. I realised that he was dead and I identified him there and then to Police Constable 520 Hogg.”
    
6. Later in the same statement, he said: “At 8.50 pm (2050) the same day I attended at the gymnasium at Sheffield Wednesday Football Ground. Police Constable 520 Hogg there showed to me, a photograph bearing the number 76. I identified that as being a photograph of my father. I was then shown the body of my father whom I identified to PC Hogg.”
    
7. In a statement made in 2014, Dr Popper addressed the issue of why all of those who died on 15 April 1989 had to be identified following the same process, when a number had been provisionally identified already. He acknowledged that the identities of a few of those who had died were known at the time the formal identifications began. He explained that formal identifications were required for coronial purposes and said that at the time the process was agreed, he did not know if anyone had been formally identified.
    
8. Again, however, there was an opportunity for officers to show some flexibility around this, and progress straight to the identification statement.

Accounts that the bereaved were prevented from holding or touching those who died

1. The issue most frequently raised by family members about this next phase of the identification process was that they were prevented from touching or embracing their loved ones, or permitted to do so only briefly. Several families specifically recalled being told that those who had died were “the property of the Coroner”. 
    
2. Leslie and Doreen Jones are the parents of Richard, who died in the disaster. In an account dated 29 March 2015, Mr Jones said that his son was covered in a black plastic bag when he was brought out to them on a trolley. He said that they tried to bend down to touch their son, but the police officer told them not to. He said the police officer told them that their son was “the property of the coroner”, which caused them extreme distress.
    
3. In a statement made to Operation Resolve in 2013, Mrs Hicks said that while at the Northern General, a police officer told her that she could not see her daughter Victoria because “she’s the property of the coroner of South Yorkshire.”
    
4. Stephen Kelly went to the MLC to identify his brother, Michael. In a statement made in 2014, he explained that he had to do this through a pane of glass, as is explained at paragraph 6.187. He said that when he saw Michael, it was a huge shock, and he wanted to go into the room with him. He said, “I explained to the police officers that Mike had been on his own all night and that I wanted to give him a kiss and let him know I was there. They told me I was not allowed to and that Mike was the property of the Coroner.”
    
5. While these were not the only family members to raise this issue, the majority did not and some specifically stated that they were given time to hold a loved one. In short, the evidence indicates that the approach was highly inconsistent, across all locations. 
    
6. Operation Resolve found no evidence that police officers dealing directly with the family and friends of those who died were given any instruction about what contact was permitted with their loved ones. In the absence of specific direction, the conduct of SYP officers in the gymnasium should be considered against the relevant Force Standing Order in place at the time, Standing Order 17A – Police Action in Respect of Sudden Deaths. This set out: “When a police officer receives information about a sudden unnatural death, he is in charge of the body and should take measures to ensure that the body and anything on it is not interfered with until it is decided whether it is to be removed to the mortuary…and the Coroners’ staff take charge…”.
    
7. Nonetheless, it is hard to see how a bereaved family member hugging their loved one in this situation would cause any practical issue for the coronial process. Further, there was nothing in the Coroners Rules 1984 or the Coroners Act 1988 that set out what contact could or could not be had with those who had died during the identification process. Therefore, there was no reason why families should have been prevented from physical contact with their loved ones. The IOPC therefore upheld all complaints about this matter. 
    
8. It was notable that when interviewed by Operation Resolve in 2014, D Ch Supt Addis said: “as you know, when anybody dies, and the police are involved, the body becomes the property of the coroner.” Though this was a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the law, the fact that he used this specific phrase could suggest that he had used the same phrase at the gymnasium. However, Operation Resolve did not find any specific evidence to this effect.