Perhaps the blame was placed to harshly on LFC fans - perhaps. But the pendulum has no swung too far the other way, with them all, every one of them, being held up as saints and sinless and in no way to blame for anything at all.
Tell that to the families of the victims of Heysel.
Heysel and Hillsborough were unrelated incidents - it's completely illogical to insinuate that the Hillsborough casualties were in some way to blame for their own deaths because of the behaviour of other people who happen to support the same football club. I also haven't heard anyone, including Liverpool fans themselves, suggest that they were completely blameless at Heysel. What people have suggested is that other factors were also involved including dangerous stadium design (something the club pointed out repeatedly beforehand but which was ignored by officials), poor seating allocation, prior violence by other Italian fans causing increased tensions and so on. That isn't passing the buck or suggesting that the fans were innocent, it's pointing out that there were also other ways in which the tragedy could and should have been averted. (Of course it's possible that there are a few nuts claiming the Liverpool supporters were completely innocent as well, of the sort that you're bound to find in every club, but I haven't come across any personally).
Additionally, the fact that the judge has asked for the behaviour of other supporters to be investigated in this inquest also demonstrates that 'every one of them' is most definitely not being held up as 'saints and sinless'. But again, this isn't about Heysel, it's about Hillsborough - they're not connected and shouldn't be conflated.
He went on to say, "I phrase it in that way because I don't believe anyone will suggest that the conduct of those who died in any way contributed to their deaths."
Perhaps he is motivated by a desire to assuage the fears of the families of those that died and, given the outrageous efforts to conceal the truth by some policemen (through the 'editing' of statements), the desire to seek some form of balance is understandable.
Or perhaps, given that even after the initial desperate attempts by the authorities to shift the blame onto the victims (including taking blood alcohol readings at the time, even from young children) the verdict was recorded as accidental death, he's decided it's unlikely that any evidence will be found to say they were complicit in their own deaths now. If, somehow, it was unambiguously discovered that some of them were to blame then I imagine he might well amend his initial statements, but the chances of such unambiguous evidence turning up after 25 years when it was searched hard for in the first place and not found is virtually none.
It's speculation, sure (I tried to find any further statements clarifying his position on that but there were none, even in the full transcript), but no more so than your suggestion, and seems a hell of a lot more plausible to me than deliberately fudging the inquest so as not to offend people.
What will happen if DNA evidence is found to link the injuries suffered by one victim to the fists, fingernails or teeth of another?
I don't even understand what you're insinuating here. All the victims were found to have died through injuries sustained by crushing - why are you implying that their injuries might have been caused by fighting, and that that has something to do with their deaths, when that's already been shown not to be the case? Anyway, given the circumstances of the deaths, I would imagine that any DNA evidence that did turn up as you described would be more likely to come from people hitting or grabbing at each other by accident or in a panic in their attempts to escape, rather than through aggressive behaviour.
What if such evidence is combined with extremely high blood-alcohol readings? Are the jury not to assign any degree of responsibility on the victims, even in those circumstances?
Blood alcohol levels were already taken at the original inquests, including from the child victims, and in the majority of cases no or negligible levels of alcohol were found. The relatives themselves are submitting a report on the blood alcohol readings at the new inquests. So that is highly unlikely. But in any case, it's a red herring - many people have a few drinks or even get drunk before a football match, and the majority of them don't die. To imply that the victims would be somehow to blame for their own deaths based on the fact that they had been drinking before the match is ludicrous, and a huge insult to most 'normal' football fans as well as the casualties here.
I know some people, perhaps many, will disagree with me on this but I raise these concerns to alert other to the dangers of deliberate attempts to conceal or limit the truth. No matter what the motivation, however ‘understandable’, efforts to deflect examination must at the very least be revealed for what they are and should be resisted by anyone that cares about learning from experience.
As others have pointed out above, there has indeed been a conspiracy to conceal the truth, and it's been happening for the past 25 years. What's happening now isn't an attempt at 'deflecting examination', it's an attempt to examine in the first place what should have been investigated at the time but wasn't. The behaviour of the victims was thoroughly picked over the first time round - now is the time to look at the other, more important, factors that for decades were ignored in favour of cover-ups, lies and smears. To focus as much on the fans' behaviour as you have in this post, in light of all the evidence, is like refusing to listen when a doctor tries to talk to you about your cancer because you're too busy insisting that she fix your cold instead.