The Taylor report did find the police most accontable despite all their attempts to shift the blame, yes. And I've not missed or ignored anything. What you fail to understand is that it was the verdict of the inquest (along with the police cover up/smear campaign) not the Taylor report that the families have been fighting against.The Taylor Report blamed the police DESPITE their cover-ups, so had they been honest it would have still blamed them wouldn't it?
The point I'm making, which you are missing or deliberately ignoring, is that I believe the families would have been happy with that but that they've only continued to push for further enquiries because of the attempted whitewash by the police to blame the fans which they then wanted completely reversed to the exact opposite (i.e. Police 100% to blame and fans 0%).
A lot of the findings in the Taylor report weren't considered at the inquest because of the 3.15pm cut off time that the coroner imposed.
I thought unlawful killing was generally used for things more than gross negligence. Like in a fight you punched someone and they fell and cracked their head, or a police marksmen killing someone against guidelines. In other words when a deliberate attempt to harm head been made, rather than a culmination of mistakes that resulted in tragedy.
To use an example, lots of horrible mistakes, negligence and bad procedures led to the death of 56 people in the Bradford City fire, the club were found to be responsible and yet there was no "unlawful killing" verdict for those victims (they got 'death misadventure').
I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand, yes gross negligence was enough to lead to an unlawful killing verdict.