I mean, if they'd come to this verdict because there wasn't quite enough evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, or because it didn't quite meet the technical definition of 'manslaughter' or something, it might be more acceptable. But to read that all of the conclusions from the inquests were basically ignored and all the old arguments and disinformation came back into play, and the judge allowed such things to go unchallenged, is just beyond belief. It's like all the progress made in recent years was lost and the whole thing went back 30 years. Honestly that judge sounds like someone straight out of 1989.
The contrast between the process of the inquests - modern, open, thorough, professional and unbiased - and this trial - amateurish, ignoring important evidence, and vulnerable to the whims and prejudices of the judge - is really shocking. If the jury were not exposed to (or were told to ignore) the outcome of the inquests and all the facts that have been established recently, and were confronted instead with all the old arguments and disinformation, it's kind of understandable they would think there wasn't enough conclusive evidence to convict. But they should have had all the facts, and the defence should not have been able to dispute them. It had already been established that the fans were not to blame, so all they should've been considering here was how responsible Duckenfield was, and whether it could be classed as manslaughter. There's no way anyone should've been allowed to even suggest that the fans were to blame.