I think the Liverpool players are unwise at getting involved in this. *IF* Shields is completely innocent, why don't the UK authorities prosecute his friend/accomplice for a crime commited overseas and put him in jail? If justice were then seen to be served by the Bulgarian authorities they might allow Shields early release. Can't see the Bulgarians agreeing to let him out unless the UK do something about the bloke who has openly admitted/boasted attempted murder of one of it's citizens.
Can you imagine if ia crowd of Sofia holigans who came to Liverpool and nearly killed a barman and then the players wore t-shirts demanding that the convicted man be freed? The brits would go apoplectic!
He's in a UK jail now. The Brits paid £90,000 to the Bulgars for his transfer...
But there's still a questionmark over whether the Brits can release him without approval from the Bulgarians. There's some kind of review going to take place I think.
A judicial review hearing is to begin today. Justice Secretary Jack Straw does not have the authority to grant him early release.
The mosiac the other night was first class. You do know someone has admitted to doing this yeah?
Fair play to Lpool for stiacking by this lad....
...but I am sure Robbie Fowler is feeling a tad picked on.
Quote from: corn02 on December 04, 2008, 10:05:11 AM
The mosiac the other night was first class. You do know someone has admitted to doing this yeah?
Another Liverpool fan admitted he did it but did he not subsequently retract?
Quote from: magpie seanie on December 04, 2008, 04:17:41 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 04, 2008, 10:05:11 AM
The mosiac the other night was first class. You do know someone has admitted to doing this yeah?
Another Liverpool fan admitted he did it but did he not subsequently retract?
To be honest there has been so many twists and turns you are probably right. I think the boy is called shanks or something. There is just something odd about the whole thing i.e the police forcing hi to change into a cream top.
The end of the day, a waiter suffered, but reading what I have read I believe Shields is innocent.
Is there evidence that can prove beyond reasonable doubt that this guy is innocent?
To be honest I had never heard of this case until the game last Monday night so I'm not well up on the facts,though I am a believer that there is never smoke without fire
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 04, 2008, 05:24:50 PM
though I am a believer that there is never smoke without fire
Very very dangerous assumption!
Theres been plenty killed in NI where people have claimed, wrongly, they where in such and such an organization.
Quote from: nifan on December 04, 2008, 06:05:32 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 04, 2008, 05:24:50 PM
though I am a believer that there is never smoke without fire
Very very dangerous assumption!
Theres been plenty killed in NI where people have claimed, wrongly, they where in such and such an organization.
Not quite the same thing nifan.
I meant there must be a reason he was held in the first place though as I said I don't know anything about the case,thats why I asked is there evidence that prove beyond reasonable doubt that this guy is innocent...?
Quote from: corn02 on December 04, 2008, 04:55:15 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on December 04, 2008, 04:17:41 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 04, 2008, 10:05:11 AM
The mosiac the other night was first class. You do know someone has admitted to doing this yeah?
Another Liverpool fan admitted he did it but did he not subsequently retract?
To be honest there has been so many twists and turns you are probably right. I think the boy is called shanks or something.
Graham Sankey fled the hotel in Bulgaria that night and later made a confession that he hit the Bulgarian lad. He then retracted the confession and is on the run now. He left Liverpool anyway.
Sankey and Shields didn't know each other. They were in different groups at the resort. Sankey is not even a Liverpool fan apparently. He's an Evertonian but went for the piss-up with some of his Liverpool supporting mates.
ITV aired a documentary on the case there about a year ago.
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 04, 2008, 06:10:42 PM
Quote from: nifan on December 04, 2008, 06:05:32 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 04, 2008, 05:24:50 PM
though I am a believer that there is never smoke without fire
Very very dangerous assumption!
Theres been plenty killed in NI where people have claimed, wrongly, they where in such and such an organization.
Not quite the same thing nifan.
I meant there must be a reason he was held in the first place though as I said I don't know anything about the case,thats why I asked is there evidence that prove beyond reasonable doubt that this guy is innocent...?
I assume LL is taking the piss here to make his point, and can't imagine any Liverpool fan would not have heard about Shields' case before anyway.
The Bulgarian government have said that if Britain decide to release him they won't kick up a fuss, I think they've realised what a shambles his arrest and conviction was. I think it's a disgrace that Jack Straw and Britain are so afraid of offending another country that they won't release a citizen of their own who is clearly innocent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1495692/Innocent-gentle-giant-Or-remorseless-thug-guilty-of-attempted-murder.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1495692/Innocent-gentle-giant-Or-remorseless-thug-guilty-of-attempted-murder.html)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00599/news-graphics-2005-_599103a.jpg)
Innocent, gentle giant? Or remorseless thug guilty of attempted murder?
There are posters all across Liverpool plastered on community centres, shops and pubs, peeking out from sitting-room windows up and down the grimy terraced streets. "Innocent", shouts the bold lettering above a photograph of puppy-faced Michael Shields. "This young man is being accused of a crime he did not commit," insist the posters, published by his family. "Please come forward and help."
Since this emotive appeal was printed more than a month ago, Shields, an 18-year-old engineering student from Liverpool's Edge Hill area, has been convicted by a court in Bulgaria of attempting to murder a local fish-and-chip shop worker. Shields, an ardent Liverpool FC fan who was staying in Bulgaria with friends after watching his team win the European Cup in Istanbul, is said to have smashed a paving slab into the head of Martin Georgiev during a drunken fracas at the Black Sea resort of Golden Sands. Mr Georgiev, who suffered significant brain damage after his skull was broken open during the attack, is now unable to work. The court sentenced Shields to 15 years in prison.
In answer to the posters, someone did indeed come forward to help, but to no avail. It was announced during the trial that Graham Sankey, a fellow Liverpool FC fan and apparently a stranger to Shields, had confessed in writing to being the real culprit behind the attack. However, after examining the confession, made on condition that Mr Sankey would not have to stand trial himself, prosecutors decided that he was responsible for assaulting someone else. The refusal of the Bulgarian authorities to take heed of Mr Sankey's admission has sent Liverpudlians into anger overdrive and in the process brought Shields's plight to national attention. His family has begun a yellow ribbon campaign and called on the Government to intervene to save their son.
Their cause has won many supporters. Liverpool footballers have pledged to back Shields - one player, Jamie Carragher, even dedicated his first goal of the season to the teenager - while local businesses have undertaken to boycott Bulgarian goods.
The blanket criticism of Bulgaria's judicial system has infuriated authorities in the Eastern European state and the gathering storm around the case is now threatening to turn it into an international incident. But has Shields indeed been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, or is he a guilty man?
One aspect of the case is not in dispute, and that is what happened to Mr Georgiev, a 25-year-old father of two young children, who on the night of Sunday, May 29, was at work in the Big Ben fish-and-chip shop at the resort. By the early hours of the next morning, the area was bustling with revellers, many of them drunken Liverpool supporters who had returned from their team's historic victory in Istanbul. Among them was Anthony Wilson, 18, who entered the restaurant at about 5am, visibly drunk, and ordered a hot dog and beer.
After first refusing to pay, he sat down and began exchanging insults with two English couples sitting nearby. Wilson's friend, Bradley Thompson, 19, grabbed his drunken compatriot and pulled him away, throwing a few choice epithets over his shoulder for good measure. One of the English men chased after them, but when Wilson and Thompson responded by pelting him with bottles he then returned to arm himself with a couple of improvised missiles from the drinks cabinet in the fish-and-chip shop.
Mr Georgiev went outside to try to calm the situation. He told the court that the last thing he remembers seeing was a fair-haired man wearing a white shirt, whom he later identified as Shields, run up and punch him in the face. Wilson, Thompson and, apparently, Shields, then set about teaching Mr Georgiev a lesson in what English teenagers abroad are wont to do when drunk: adminstering vicious beatings.
Three Bulgarian witnesses told the court that they saw Shields pick up an 8lb paving slab and bring it down on Mr Georgiev's head, while Wilson and Thompson laid into him with hefty kicks. Daniela Krumova, a waitress working at Big Ben's, identified Shields as the person who hit Mr Georgiev with the slab. "He was like mad," she said, "out of control."
According to Ms Krumova, Shields held the slab with both hands above his head and threw it at Mr Georgiev's head with all his might. The strength of the impact was such that the stone bounced off the victim's head.
Danail Yordanov, also working at Big Ben's, recognised Shields as the person who hit Mr Georgiev with the slab. However, he said that he had not seen Shields's face from the front but only in profile.
Vassil Todorov, who was in Big Ben's at the time of the incident, told the court that he saw Shields taking part in the fight. "He was standing over Martin Georgiev and had foam coming out of his mouth," he said.
After the attack, the police were called and told by Mr Todorov that an Englishman at the scene had said the assailants were staying at the Kristal hotel. The next morning a number of English fans, including those staying at the hotel, were rounded up by the police. Shields was among them, as were his friends Kieron Dunne, 20, and John Unsworth, 21. All three had been sharing room 419. Room 421 next door had been occupied by Wilson and Thompson, who were friends of Mr Sankey, until both had been evicted by the hotel management earlier for disturbing other guests. The two groups had become friendly and had spent previous mornings on their neighbouring balconies comparing notes from the night's revelries.
This morning was different, however. Their passports seized by the police, Mr Dunne, Mr Unsworth and Shields were asked to don white shirts and take part in an identity parade. None had been wearing a white shirt the night before, although Shields's was cream-coloured.
Another man who was detained, although only briefly, was Mr Sankey, a 20-year-old electrician. Since he had dark hair and did not fit the description given to the police he was allowed to go free.
Shields was not so lucky. He was repeatedly picked out by witnesses in identity parades, taken off for further questioning and later charged with the attack on Mr Georgiev. His friends, meanwhile, caught their flight back to Britain in the expectation, they said later, that Shields would be released and follow on a later plane.
Within days, Shields's parents, Maria and Michael, were protesting their son's innocence to the media and making much noise about the "intolerable" conditions in which he was being detained. They insisted the teenager was a "gentle giant" who would never hurt anyone; there must have been some kind of mistake.
The Shields family mobilised their son's friends to return to Bulgaria and give evidence. Central to Shields's defence was his claim, backed up by Mr Dunne, Mr Unsworth and others, that he had been tucked up in bed by 3am on the morning of May 30 and therefore could not have carried out the attack, which was said to have happened about two hours later.
By early July, friends of the Shields family were also already pointing fingers at Mr Sankey as the "real culprit" - a charge that he emphatically denied. The trial was set for July 21, with Wilson also due to face charges of hooliganism and possession of cannabis.
Significantly, Thompson, who had also been charged with hooliganism, had already made a confession, for which he had received a six-month suspended sentence, after confirming that he had attacked Mr Georgiev together with Wilson and Shields. However, when the trial began and Thompson was called to give evidence, he gave a highly contradictory and muddled account of events.
In front of two judges and three jury members, Thompson said he did not know Shields, despite the fact that he had stayed in a room next to his at the hotel. Backtracking on his own confession, he said that he had only seen the fight from far away and ran off after a brick was thrown at someone's head by someone with "brownish hair" whom he did not know. In so testifying, he had effectively ruled out Mr Sankey as the culprit, since he was someone whom he knew well.
As the other defence witnesses trooped in to give evidence regarding Shields's whereabouts at 3am, it became obvious that a surprisingly large number of his friends had seen him peacefully asleep at that time - even those who were not staying in the same room. All sorts of reasons were given for their having stumbled into the apparently unlocked room where they had, they said, seen his prone form before retreating. One had gone to the room thinking that there might be a party there, only to be disappointed to find every-one was tucked up in bed, while another had dropped by to retrieve his mobile telephone, and so on.
One defence witness, Paul Graney, pointed the finger at Mr Sankey, although his testimony was anything but conclusive. Mr Graney said: "He never said that he did not hit anybody, but neither had he said he did hit somebody." Both Graney and Shields had denied being related, but eventually Shields was forced to admit that they were "kind of cousins".
Then came the bombshell that catapulted the case into the headlines: from the safety of Britain, Mr Sankey issued a confession via his solicitor that he was indeed the man who had nearly killed Mr Georgiev. Mr Sankey was not, however, prepared to stand trial. His expectation seemed to be that Shields would now be set free and the matter forgotten about.
The defence, naturally, seized upon the admission. But the court's judges seemed less impressed, prompting intercontinental outcries of incredulity. What nobody seemed to ask was why the court should accept a confession that ran counter to all the known facts of the case. In his statement, Mr Sankey claimed that: "I saw three men running at me with bottles and bricks in their hands. I panicked and stupidly picked up a brick and threw it in the direction of the men running towards me. I saw the brick hit one of them. I panicked and I turned and ran away and returned to the hotel."
How Mr Sankey could be so certain that the man he had injured was Mr Georgiev was puzzling. Certainly the Bulgarian's injuries, which included having a three-inch section of his skull staved out with something far more substantial than a lofted brick, were inconsistent with Mr Sankey's account.
The prosecution witnesses saw a man, whom they believed was Shields, smash a paving slab on Mr Georgiev's head. Even if they had mistakenly identified Shields, Mr Sankey's version was not in keeping with their accounts.
Last week, Mr Sankey and Thompson were unavailable for comment. Wilson, who was given a suspended sentence for his role in the attack, is still in Bulgaria. Others were keen, however, to keep the pressure up for Shields to be released. Mr Unsworth, an apprentice pipefitter who had been rounded up by police at the Kristal hotel, dismissed the inconsistencies in Mr Sankey's confession. "Sankey is just saying that he threw a brick, but I spoke to a lad who was there and he saw him smash the brick on the guy's head," he said.
And why had Mr Sankey suddenly confessed? Mr Unsworth shrugged. "Probably he thought it would not go this far, and then when it did his conscience got the better of him."
Whatever the truth, the case is an unedifying one and reflects poorly on Liverpool's football supporters. Mr Unsworth summed up the unsavoury feeling about the whole affair. He sympathised with his friend left in prison, he said, but had little pity for Mr Georgiev. "I felt sorry for him at first, but by insisting it was Michael that attacked him he is just trying to get his compensation money. Anyway, he only came out of the fish-and-chip shop to help out the Germans who were out there."
QuoteI think it's a disgrace that Jack Straw and Britain are so afraid of offending another country that they won't release a citizen of their own who is clearly innocent.
Having read the article above I d/k how you can say he is "clearly innocent".
All this guy Sanky has seemingly admitted to was thowing a brick at a crowd of people running who were running at him with bottles. This does not even come close to the story of the 3 witnesses who said the culprit (whom they identified as Shields) threw a paving slab, not a brick on the mans head as he lay on the floor.
Mistaken identity may be a possible defence but most telling is the tenstimony of this guy Thompson who as admitted the charge of hooliganism and said that he & Shileds attacked the waiter together. Why would he say that if Shields was in bed?
Finally this there's fella Graney who was Shields's witness who said he saw Sankey throw the the slab. Shields denied being related to Graney and then later admitted they were cousins.
If this all points to "clearly innocent" then Mark Chapman probably didn't kill John Lennon either.
That is quite a one-sided article with underlying tones that Shields is guilty. There have been plenty of articles hinting that he is purely innocent.
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 04, 2008, 06:10:42 PM
Not quite the same thing nifan.
I meant there must be a reason he was held in the first place though as I said I don't know anything about the case,thats why I asked is there evidence that prove beyond reasonable doubt that this guy is innocent...?
I do not know if he was innocent or guilty.
However, for a reason he was held? Pressure on police to make a quick arrest is one possibility - it has certainly been the cause around the world for wrongful arrests.
Perhaps he was the same height build and hair colour as the person they are looking for, or perhaps it was him. I dont know, but no smoke without fire is a dangerous claim.
QuoteThat is quite a one-sided article with underlying tones that Shields is guilty. There have been plenty of articles hinting that he is purely innocent.
In fairness it's probably a balanced article and the poins StGalls makes can't be ignored. Rags like the Mirror, Sun, Liverpool Echo etc will of course rally around the "our boy is innocent" flagpole.
How come Liverpool fans/scousers never take the blame for anything and are always claim to be the victims without any regard for the real victims? En masse the fans come out shouting his innocence, most of whom know nothing about the case.
The most laughable of all is the rumour (now stated as fact by any hard--nosed Liverpool fan you meet) that Skanks or whetver he's called is actually an Everton fan who tagged along to start trouble.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 10:56:11 AM
QuoteThat is quite a one-sided article with underlying tones that Shields is guilty. There have been plenty of articles hinting that he is purely innocent.
In fairness it's probably a balanced article and the poins StGalls makes can't be ignored. Rags like the Mirror, Sun, Liverpool Echo etc will of course rally around the "our boy is innocent" flagpole.
How come Liverpool fans/scousers never take the blame for anything and are always claim to be the victims without any regard for the real victims? En masse the fans come out shouting his innocence, most of whom know nothing about the case.
The most laughable of all is the rumour (now stated as fact by any hard--nosed Liverpool fan you meet) that Skanks or whetver he's called is actually an Everton fan who tagged along to start trouble.
Isomehow doubt the Sun will be rallying around.
So what are you saying then, he is clearly guilty?
Don't be such a prat, it is hardly denying the truth because he is a Pool fan, it is looking for answers because he is a Pool fan. Don't take your petty little rivarly anxieties into serious matters.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 10:56:11 AM
QuoteThat is quite a one-sided article with underlying tones that Shields is guilty. There have been plenty of articles hinting that he is purely innocent.
How come Liverpool fans/scousers never take the blame for anything and are always claim to be the victims without any regard for the real victims? En masse the fans come out shouting his innocence, most of whom know nothing about the case.
Also are you forgetting Juventus in 05? Where clubs and fans alike made a massive effort to apologies to Juventus fans? Grow up.
Haven't read the article I would be of the opinion that he's far from innocent.
Corn have you any articles that would convince me otherwise?
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 11:08:21 AM
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 10:56:11 AM
QuoteThat is quite a one-sided article with underlying tones that Shields is guilty. There have been plenty of articles hinting that he is purely innocent.
How come Liverpool fans/scousers never take the blame for anything and are always claim to be the victims without any regard for the real victims? En masse the fans come out shouting his innocence, most of whom know nothing about the case.
Also are you forgetting Juventus in 05? Where clubs and fans alike made a massive effort to apologies to Juventus fans? Grow up.
20 years to apologise.
Its taken nearly 3 years for Shields family to publically express regret for what happened to Martin Georgiev, the victim in this incident
QuoteIts taken nearly 3 years for Shields family to publically express regret for what happened to Martin Georgiev, the victim in this incident
A view not shared by all.
QuoteMr Unsworth summed up the unsavoury feeling about the whole affair. He sympathised with his friend left in prison, he said, but had little pity for Mr Georgiev. "I felt sorry for him at first, but by insisting it was Michael that attacked him he is just trying to get his compensation money. Anyway, he only came out of the fish-and-chip shop to help out the Germans who were out there."
What a complete sc**bag, any chance they could lock him up too?
Lads settle down and calm yourselves a minute. Take the fact he's a Livepool fan out of it.
It's a case of an english scally charged with attempted murder by trying to cave an innocent mans head in with a paving slab procliaming his total innocence and not having been at the scene. He was witnessed doing it by several people & picked from an identity parade. A co-accused has admited they both attacked the man together. He and his alibi/main defence witness both lied about being related.
Would you or anyone else from this side of the water be interested in the case or proclaiming his innocence if he was a England fan on tour? No of course you wouldnt. In fact you might say he was probably guilty. But just becasue he's a Liverpool fan there's theres a "he's one of ours" seige mentality and 1000's of Irish calling for his release.
Time to catch a grip about how far "supporting your club" extends to when you claim a convicted attempted murderer is innocent just cos he supports the same club as you.
Quote from: An Fear Rua on December 05, 2008, 11:14:34 AM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 11:08:21 AM
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 10:56:11 AM
QuoteThat is quite a one-sided article with underlying tones that Shields is guilty. There have been plenty of articles hinting that he is purely innocent.
How come Liverpool fans/scousers never take the blame for anything and are always claim to be the victims without any regard for the real victims? En masse the fans come out shouting his innocence, most of whom know nothing about the case.
Also are you forgetting Juventus in 05? Where clubs and fans alike made a massive effort to apologies to Juventus fans? Grow up.
20 years to apologise.
What a stupid statement. It was the first time the two teams met since the incidient.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 11:20:35 AM
Lads settle down and calm yourselves a minute. Take the fact he's a Livepool fan out of it.
It's a case of an english scally charged with attempted murder by trying to cave an innocent mans head in with a paving slab procliaming his total innocence and not having been at the scene. He was witnessed doing it by several people & picked from an identity parade. A co-accused has admited they both attacked the man together. He and his alibi/main defence witness both lied about being related.
Would you or anyone else from this side of the water be interested in the case or proclaiming his innocence if he was a England fan on tour? No of course you wouldnt. In fact you might say he was probably guilty. But just becasue he's a Liverpool fan there's theres a "he's one of ours" seige mentality and 1000's of Irish calling for his release.
Time to catch a grip about how far "supporting your club" extends to when you claim a convicted attempted murderer is innocent just cos he supports the same club as you.
So what about Shanks confession?
To be honest Corn that "confession" would come with a large health warning.
Think Under the Bar may have hit the nail on the head, good post.
Pints I'll search out a good one, here is one I found quick from the BBC
Michael Shields - miscarriage of justice?
Inside Out sheds new light on the case of jailed Liverpool fan Michael Shields. He was convicted of attempted murder after the European Champions League final in May 2005.
Liverpool supporters will never forget the night in Istanbul in May 2005 when their team lifted the Champions League trophy against AC Milan.
But for one Liverpool supporter - Michael Shields - it was the start of a nightmare which is still going on.
Dream turned sour
Michael's story starts in the Bulgarian resort of Varna on the Black Sea coast.
In May 2005 thousands of Liverpool fans converged on the town as a stopping-off point as they made their way to the Champions League Final in Istanbul.
For most it was simply more affordable to get a package holiday flight to Bulgaria and travel the rest of the way overland to Turkey than fly direct to Istanbul.
The match itself was to prove one of the most memorable European Champions League finals in recent years. Liverpool staged a dramatic comeback after being 3-0 down to beat AC Milan on penalties.
There were amazing scenes in Liverpool when thousands of supporters welcomed the team home.
Dream ticket - Liverpool celebrate.
But while most fans celebrated in Liverpool, others stayed on in Bulgaria. Michael Shields was one of them.
On the last night he and hundreds of Liverpool supporters spent the evening drinking in the bars and cafés in Golden Sands.
But what should have been a night of celebration turned into one of confrontation and violence.
There had been trouble involving some Liverpool fans during that night with fights and bottles being thrown.
Martin Georgiev came out of Big Ben's diner where he was working to see what was going on.
He was attacked and flung down on to the ground. "I fell down on the ground, then the person continued hitting me. He came back with a stone, throw it and that's the last thing I remember," he says.
Martin suffered severe head injuries - a crushed skull and a brain haemorrhage.
Plea of innocence
The attack had been witnessed by dozens of people and within hours the police had arrested four suspects - all of them Liverpool fans staying in the town.
One of them was Michael Shields.
From the outset Michael Shields pleaded his innocence - insisting he'd been asleep in his room when the attack took place.
His mother, Maria Shields, couldn't believe it when she heard the news.
But at an identification parade Michael was picked out by witnesses and was identified as the person who threw the rock.
Miscarriage of justice?
Following a trial in Bulgaria, Michael Shields was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
This was later reduced to 10 years on appeal. Michael was also ordered to pay £93,000 compensation to Martin Georgiev.
Nightmare journey - Michael Shields.
After spending over a year in jail in Bulgaria, Michael Shields was allowed to return to the UK to serve the rest of his sentence.
He's currently at Garth Prison in Lancashire.
Inside Out has been granted permission to visit him and hear his side of the story.
He remembers his shock when he was taken to the court and charged in Bulgaria:
"The woman whispered in my ear, 'attempted murder'. I said 'what do you mean attempted murder?'... She said, '15 to 20 years, 20 years to life, no parole'.
"They took me back down. I was shell-shocked, thinking 'what's happening over here?"
Alibi?
We met one of the people Michael was with that evening.
Geoff Hughes met Michael while they were in Bulgaria and tells us he was with him on the night of the incident.
"We were out having a good time and we were that bladdered. Me and Michael were in the club together and decided to go back - we'd have a drink in the hotel.
"So we went back to the hotel and we had a bottle of vodka in my room... There was a load of other fans still there having a drink in the hotel and Michael decided he was too drunk and wanted to go to bed."
He says that the lad who was sharing a room with Michael eventually went upstairs and found Michael "spark out - nothing was waking him up".
"We were all sitting there laughing at him, snoring his brains out."
Later that night Geoff claims he saw Michael again and he was sound asleep in the room.
When he heard Michael had been arrested, Geoff was shocked: "I was saying, 'I know for a fact that he didn't do it because I had seen him. I was with him'."
Confession retracted
One of the others arrested along with Michael Shields was Graham Sankey.
He was released without charge by the Bulgarian police and was never called to give evidence.
But during the course of the trial, he came forward and made a statement confessing:
"I remember seeing a disturbance and a fight was taking place ...I panicked and stupidly picked up a brick and threw it in the direction of the man running towards me. I saw the brick hit one of them. I panicked and I turned and ran away and returned to the hotel. I did not know at that time that Mr Martin Georgiev had been injured."
Behind bars - Michael Shields.
But the statement was rejected as inadmissible by the Varna Appeal Court because Graham Sankey was never called to give evidence.
Inside Out wanted to ask Sankey why he'd confessed to the attack on Martin Georgiev and later retracted his statement.
But he declined to comment.
In April 2008 he was jailed for five months after pleading guilty to racially aggravated harassment of a doorman outside a bar in Liverpool city centre.
Eye-witness account
One eyewitness, who doesn't wanted to be identified, claims he saw the man who threw the rock at Martin Georgiev's head.
There were a number of lads throwing bottles and causing a commotion, he recalls.
"Martin Georgiev came out of the chip shop and starts saying, 'we don't want any trouble'...
"I don't know whether they were English or not... a lad, one of the group, just comes bolting across the road. Then just as he got level with him, he just hit him. He just knocked him flat out one punch, knocked out.
"Martin fell face down on the floor, knocked out completely."
The eye witness is convinced it was Sankey that threw the rock: "I'm very convinced, after seeing him in the hotel and then, you know, across the road. He was only 20 yards away across the road when I seen him..."
In his view there had been a miscarriage of justice: "I couldn't believe it. How could they get it wrong?... we'd been back to the Big Ben's the next day and there was a fellow that worked in there who spoke perfect English.
"He said, 'yeah, we seen who it was - it was like the fat lad with the dark hair'.
Our eye witness says he'd be willing to sign a sworn statement with this account.
Vital witness?
North West MEP Arlene McCarthy has been lobbying the Bulgarian Government to re-open the case.
Inside Out travelled to Bulgaria to look for new witnesses who could throw fresh light on what happened.
We also received a response from the Bulgarian Government to a request for information.
Miglena Tacheva, the Minister for Justice, says that Bulgaria cannot and will not re-open the case, but significantly it states:
"The release from prison of Mr Shields could be therefore executed by the competent authorities of the UK under the Article 12 of the Convention which permits the application of the administering State's legislation."
Searching for the truth - the Shields.
During our visit there was a dramatic development. Our Bulgarian fixer Andrey traced a crucial new witness - an employee at the hotel where Michael was staying.
Our witness told us he remembered Michael Shields but not the time he arrived back with his mates.
"I remember that they were drunk... but if you asked me about the time they came back, right now I would not be able to tell you any exact time...
"I also remember that Michael came to the reception and asked for his key and that he was also very drunk."
He remembers seeing Graham Sankey early in the morning and says he was also visibly drunk.
The victim's story
Martin Georgiev has agreed to an exclusive interview for Inside Out - it's the first time he's broken his silence since the trial.
Since the attack Martin's life has changed dramatically and he says that he's not able to do most of the things he used to do.
He remembers that on the night of the attack, he witnessed trouble and came out of Big Ben's cafe to calm things down.
"I was put on identity parade and I knew that it weren't right straight away... I was stuck back in the corner all night handcuffed to the radiator."
Michael Shields on his arrest
Martin says that he saw his attacker's face: "He was like two metres away from me so I saw his face. I saw his T-shirt. I know very well who hit me and who threw the stone."
He's convinced it was Michael Shields.
"Absolutely certain. And it's not only me it's like 20, 22, 23 witnesses that saw the incident. All of them say 100% that it's him."
Fighting to clear his name
But Michael Shields remains adamant that he had nothing to do with the attack: "One hundred per cent I had nothing to do with what happened that night. I mean, anyone who was there knows what happened.
"Most of the people who were in that hotel know what happened, so it's not just me saying it. It's a lot of people saying it."
Today Michael is still fighting to clear his name: "I mean I've got a criminal record for something that I never done... I don't want to carry on for the rest of my life with that."
Inside Out has managed to secure an exclusive interview with Jack Straw to discuss Michael Shields's case and the new developments contained in the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice letter.
Jack Straw - personal interest...
Jack Straw told us: "I do not want to raise false hopes for Michael and for the family but I take this letter very seriously and I am seeking urgent advice from senior counsel, QC, about whether or not given what the Bulgarians are now saying, there is a power, exceptionally, to effect Michael's release.
Jack Straw - new developments...
"But I know that there have been many false dawns on this case. I understand the frustration of Michael and the family but I do have to work within the law, and that includes both our domestic law and practice and international law, and I can't do any other than that but I am going to explore every avenue."
His message to the Shields family is:
"I understand your frustration, not to say anger, about the delays in the case... but I have been involved in Michael's case since the start and I take the matter very seriously indeed, and I'm handling it personally."
It seems that another chapter in the Michael Shields' case is about to unfold...
Quote from: magpie seanie on December 05, 2008, 11:32:08 AM
To be honest Corn that "confession" would come with a large health warning.
Think Under the Bar may have hit the nail on the head, good post.
Well surely these witnesses should come with a health warning too, or do the witnesses who say that saw him in his hotel room not count because they were Liverpool fans with him?
QuoteSo what about Shanks confession?
Sankey said, "I saw three men running at me with bottles and bricks in their hands. I panicked and stupidly picked up a brick and threw it in the direction of the men running towards me. I saw the brick hit one of them. I panicked and I turned and ran away and returned to the hotel."
How is that a confession to smashing a paving slab into the head of an unarmed & innocent man on the ground being viciously assaulted by 2 others?
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 11:29:31 AM
It was the first time the two teams met since the incidient. What a stupid statement.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 11:20:35 AM
Lads settle down and calm yourselves a minute. Take the fact he's a Livepool fan out of it.
Time to catch a grip about how far "supporting your club" extends to when you claim a convicted attempted murderer is innocent just cos he supports the same club as you.
One of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. You make it out as if Pool fans would back Harold Shipman. There have been plenty of Liverpool fans who have carried out murder etc and the support base would look at them with disgust. The fact this case is different is because it is not as black and white as you have made it out to be. Jesus you think people from Northern Ireland would be open to the suggestion of a miscarriage of justice, if it so is in this case.
No harm Under the Bar, but we are old enough and big enough to make our own minds up and some of us will have read more than one article before making a decision.
Their are other facts not included in that article, for instance one of the witnesses who said Shields was in bed was the hotel porter on duty that night, who saw him return to hotel that night and not leave. He has also passed a Home Office Lie detector test. His ID parade included him and 3 bulgarians. They put a white T-shirt on him for it but he didn't have one on holidays with him. CCTV from that night showed Sankey in a white T-shirt. None of the witnessess clearly saw the face but the form and appearance of the guilty party. They are distant cousins. Sankey was willing to stand trial in the Uk. Sankey has since served time for racial abusing a doorman in Liverpool.
You may accuse a few of wearing Liverpool classes but equally others are wearing Man United or anto-english classes. As for 1000's of Irish calling for his release??? I don't see that anywhere.
As long as he's in jail, United fans can keep singing their little party songs about him and that'll keep you happy.
Don't want to get into a slanging match Under The Bar, but I hate the notion that I would back Shields for the simple reason that he was a Pool fan, I take that as an insult. Surely you can even accept there is something not right about the whole thing? The simple fact is that a Liverpool fan committed this disgusting act, that can not be argued. The saddest thing about the affair is that the victim has pretty much been forgotten.
Quote from: bingobus on December 05, 2008, 11:46:45 AM
No harm Under the Bar, but we are old enough and big enough to make our own minds up and some of us will have read more than one article before making a decision.
Their are other facts not included in that article, for instance one of the witnesses who said Shields was in bed was the hotel porter on duty that night, who saw him return to hotel that night and not leave. He has also passed a Home Office Lie detector test. His ID parade included him and 3 bulgarians. They put a white T-shirt on him for it but he didn't have one on holidays with him. CCTV from that night showed Sankey in a white T-shirt. None of the witnessess clearly saw the face but the form and appearance of the guilty party. They are distant cousins. Sankey was willing to stand trial in the Uk. Sankey has since served time for racial abusing a doorman in Liverpool.
You may accuse a few of wearing Liverpool classes but equally others are wearing Man United or anto-english classes. As for 1000's of Irish calling for his release??? I don't see that anywhere.
As long as he's in jail, United fans can keep singing their little party songs about him and that'll keep you happy.
Good post but please dlete the last line. United fans sing it, I have experienced it atAnfield first hand, they also sing about Hillsborough. We sing about Munich. (Not me, but some Pool fans). Its a tired argument that makes both suppeors look like tramps, let's not get into that particular argument.
Corn, all that article tells me is that about 20+ people (with no reason to lie) and the victim identified Shields while his friends are messing up their attempts to provide an alibi and then we've got someone working in a hotel who doesnt know what time Shields came in to the hotel at.
As for the bullshit from "One eyewitness, who doesn't wanted to be identified", give me a break!
bingo
QuoteThey put a white T-shirt on him for it but he didn't have one on holidays with him. CCTV from that night showed Sankey in a white T-shirt.
But shanky has dark hair and witnesses say the culprit had fair hair and was wearing a white shirt - Shields was wearing a cream shirt which in my eyes is the same thing.
And would you boys leave the man utd/liverpool bullshit out of it, I work with man u, liverpool and everton fans all day every day (people actually from manchester and liverpool) and I never hear the bullshit that goes on on this board.
QuoteOne of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. You make it out as if Pool fans would back Harold Shipman. There have been plenty of Liverpool fans who have carried out murder etc and the support base would look at them with disgust. The fact this case is different is because it is not as black and white as you have made it out to be. Jesus you think people from Northern Ireland would be open to the suggestion of a miscarriage of justice, if it so is in this case.
You, Bingobus and other Irish people are supporting his case because he is a Liverpool fan and no other reason. Had he been an England fan you'd not care a toss about him. Fact.
There ae a few circumstantial questions yes but how can you ignore the fact that one person charged who was associating with Shields admits that they attacked the barman together.
I would not in anyway support a ManU fan on the basis of the same evidence. There a loads of toe rags who follow both ManU and Livepool and if they get into trouble abroad let them form their own defense rather than mobilizing the club & supporters into protesting innocence they cannot possibly be any way sure of.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 10:56:11 AM
QuoteThat is quite a one-sided article with underlying tones that Shields is guilty. There have been plenty of articles hinting that he is purely innocent.
In fairness it's probably a balanced article and the poins StGalls makes can't be ignored. Rags like the Mirror, Sun, Liverpool Echo etc will of course rally around the "our boy is innocent" flagpole.
How come Liverpool fans/scousers never take the blame for anything and are always claim to be the victims without any regard for the real victims? En masse the fans come out shouting his innocence, most of whom know nothing about the case.
The most laughable of all is the rumour (now stated as fact by any hard--nosed Liverpool fan you meet) that Skanks or whetver he's called is actually an Everton fan who tagged along to start trouble.
I await your latest retraction with bated breath. I have a feeling I'll be waiting though. I suggest you grow up and stop believing everything you read on Red Issue or Red Cafe.
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/home/tm_objectid=15795480%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=i%2dwant%2dto%2dbring%2dmichael%2dhome-name_page.html (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/home/tm_objectid=15795480%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=i%2dwant%2dto%2dbring%2dmichael%2dhome-name_page.html)
I want to bring Michael home Jul 29 2005
By Greg O'Keeffe, Liverpool Echo
THE father of innocent Michael Shields has landed in Bulgaria and declared: "I've come to bring home my son."
Michael Shields snr was breaking news of three key developments as he visited his son in Varna jail.
* Graham Sankey has signed a confession, faxed by the ECHO to Bulgaria yesterday.
* The Bulgarian government will put pressure on the country's judiciary to reopen the case.
* Lawyers for Michael were today lodging an official complaint against Sankey, the first step to arrest and extradition proceedings.
The ECHO exclusively revealed the developments in later editions of yesterday's paper, but Michael was unaware of them as he languished in his Bulgarian jail cell.
Mr Shields, 45, is confident his 18-year-old son can be freed on bail now that electrician Sankey has officially admitted the paving slab attack his son was jailed for.
Speaking moments after arriving in Varna, Mr Shields said: "We've had so many ups and downs but I'm not going to give up.
"I'm going to fight with every breath in my body, even if it's my last breath.
"Even if it puts me six foot under, I have promised I will get my boy home to his mother."
Mr Shields, with his daughter Melissa, 26, was today visiting Michael in prison.
Michael was being told his legal team were beginning the process of getting Everton fan Sankey extradited.That could begin today when Bulgarian authorities contact Mersey-side police to urge them to arrest the 20-year-old Anfield man.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 11:54:24 AM
Corn, all that article tells me is that about 20+ people (with no reason to lie) and the victim identified Shields while his friends are messing up their attempts to provide an alibi and then we've got someone working in a hotel who doesnt know what time Shields came in to the hotel at.
As for the bullshit from "One eyewitness, who doesn't wanted to be identified", give me a break!
bingo
QuoteThey put a white T-shirt on him for it but he didn't have one on holidays with him. CCTV from that night showed Sankey in a white T-shirt.
But shanky has dark hair and witnesses say the culprit had fair hair and was wearing a white shirt - Shields was wearing a cream shirt which in my eyes is the same thing.
And would you boys leave the man utd/liverpool bullshit out of it, I work with man u, liverpool and everton fans all day every day (people actually from manchester and liverpool) and I never hear the bullshit that goes on on this board.
So you are just assuming that the Liverpool fans have a reason to lie then and that their accounts do not matter.
Also the inicdent happened at 5am, do you not think some of these witnesses could have been perhaps drunk themselves, or maybe could not have seen right at this time of night.
Also BBC is not the sort of media outlet to make up eyewitness accounts like the Sun.
QuoteSo you are just assuming that the Liverpool fans have a reason to lie then and that their accounts do not matter.
I think the liverpool fans and his mates in particular have reason to lie, yes.
Quote
Also the inicdent happened at 5am, do you not think some of these witnesses could have been perhaps drunk themselves, or maybe could not have seen right at this time of night.
Also BBC is not the sort of media outlet to make up eyewitness accounts like the Sun.
Possibly but have you ever been to bulgaria? You'll see very few drunk bulgarians even with all the 24 hour places selling drink.
Not that that matters, seeing an incident like that would sober you up pretty quickly and it's unlikely that 20+ people get it wrong.
Under the bar/Pints,
To say I am supporting his case is madness. If trying to put some other facts across on this board, is supporting him, then I'm giulty as charged. I don't walk round with his T-shirt on or have I donated to his appeal fund. If at a game and a bucket was been passed round, i would prob throw in a few pound. The fact he is a Liverpool supporter, has only made me aware of his case. Hundreds of football supporters have been locked up in the past abroad but this is the only one that has made headlines, tv programmes etc. Maybe its because he is innocent and those who run these media have satisfied themslves. Not every Liverpool fan who has been locked up abroad has automatically become the darling of Liverpool fans. This is a one off.
You's are obvoiusly happy with your own beliefs and I'll let you's with them. I couldn't be arsed.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 12:07:37 PM
QuoteSo you are just assuming that the Liverpool fans have a reason to lie then and that their accounts do not matter.
I think the liverpool fans and his mates in particular have reason to lie, yes.
Quote
Also the inicdent happened at 5am, do you not think some of these witnesses could have been perhaps drunk themselves, or maybe could not have seen right at this time of night.
Also BBC is not the sort of media outlet to make up eyewitness accounts like the Sun.
Possibly but have you ever been to bulgaria? You'll see very few drunk bulgarians even with all the 24 hour places selling drink.
Not that that matters, seeing an incident like that would sober you up pretty quickly and it's unlikely that 20+ people get it wrong.
Also it is unlikely that all his friends imagined him in your room. You are suspecting that his friends are lying because they are scouse. Hypothetically speaking and it was you, would you expect your friends to be lying if they said they saw you in the room?
Unfortunately I dont have the time to read all the posts here (i will do later), but all I'll say it that the investigation leading to Shield's conviction was an absolute farce and the case should have been thrown out.
- No forensics were carried out at the crime scene whatsoever.
- The conviction was based solely on eye witnesses picking shields out of a lineup. Prior to that lineup, Shields was handcuffed to a radiator in the lobby of the police station for 16hrs and the eye witnesses were allowed to pass by & see shields - that in itself would make the lineup inadmissable in court.
- Also, there should be 6 persons in the lineup, all of similar appearance. In this case, there was 4 people, and shields was the only white person. Hardly similar appearances then!!!
- Finally, depsite all the eye witnesses saying that one person initially punched Giorgiev and a different person threw a slab on his head, some of the eye witnesses at the lineup identified shields as the person who punched the bulgarian, while others identified him as the person who threw the slab. This contradiction again should have made the lineup non-conclusive.
At the end of the day there was an absolutely savage attack on Giorgiev and I dont know whether Shields is innocent or guilty of that crime. But I do believe the investigation was a shambles and the case against Shields should have been thrown out.
corn
Quote
Also it is unlikely that all his friends imagined him in your room. You are suspecting that his friends are lying because they are scouse. Hypothetically speaking and it was you, would you expect your friends to be lying if they said they saw you in the room?
FFS I dont give a shite where he is from, dont you start going down that road.
I suspect his friends may be lying because they're his friends trying to cover for him! What were they all doing going in and out of the room?
Quote from: stevo-08 on December 05, 2008, 12:23:05 PM
Unfortunately I dont have the time to read all the posts here (i will do later), but all I'll say it that the investigation leading to Shield's conviction was an absolute farce and the case should have been thrown out.
- No forensics were carried out at the crime scene whatsoever.
- The conviction was based solely on eye witnesses picking shields out of a lineup. Prior to that lineup, Shields was handcuffed to a radiator in the lobby of the police station for 16hrs and the eye witnesses were allowed to pass by & see shields - that in itself would make the lineup inadmissable in court.
- Also, there should be 6 persons in the lineup, all of similar appearance. In this case, there was 4 people, and shields was the only white person. Hardly similar appearances then!!!
- Finally, depsite all the eye witnesses saying that one person initially punched Giorgiev and a different person threw a slab on his head, some of the eye witnesses at the lineup identified shields as the person who punched the bulgarian, while others identified him as the person who threw the slab. This contradiction again should have made the lineup non-conclusive.
At the end of the day there was an absolutely savage attack on Giorgiev and I dont know whether Shields is innocent or guilty of that crime. But I do believe the investigation was a shambles and the case against Shields should have been thrown out.
Good points again, also Pints I think this sort of relegates your idea that the Bulgarians have no reason to lie, while the Pool fans do. You have no idea what type of people these are and I am just assuming you think of them as 'scallys'. Also so what if there are not many 24-hour bars etc? Many people can be getting drink, or coming out of clubs at thta stage, who is the say the eyewitnesses wwere not drnk . I have no proof but by assuming this I am being just as flippant as you assuming the people that saw him in bed were lying.
Nulgaria had their entry delayed, or at lease threatned to be delayed, into the EU because their law system was not up to scratch. The sentence was reduced from 15 to 10 years, not overly significant, but shows something was not right.
Also, regarding Shanks statement. If he did actually do it, would it not be possible that he gave a watered down version to perhaps get a reduced sentence? He admitted he was "legless" so that obviously comes into play. Also it is believed that he if anything is to come of his statement, he is looking for a sentence in Britain, hence him not going to the Bulgarian Courts.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 12:29:37 PM
corn
Quote
Also it is unlikely that all his friends imagined him in your room. You are suspecting that his friends are lying because they are scouse. Hypothetically speaking and it was you, would you expect your friends to be lying if they said they saw you in the room?
FFS I dont give a shite where he is from, dont you start going down that road.
I suspect his friends may be lying because they're his friends trying to cover for him! What were they all doing going in and out of the room?
So are you saying that it is uncommon for party goers in a foreign country not to go back to a room and have a holiday? It is the norm. So just because they are his friends they are lying? Also, why wouls Shanks confess? That should be the most important thing above eyewitnesses of friends and Bulgarians.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 12:29:37 PM
corn
Quote
FFS I dont give a shite where he is from, dont you start going down that road.
Fair enough, I apologise for that. But I do suspect that if was an Armagh/Tyrone man etc and the witnesses were not Bulgarian but Iraqi or something, people would take a different viewpoint due to the stereotypes attached. They would probably take the the firedns' statements on a much higher ground and dismiss the Iraqi accounts more easily.
QuoteSo are you saying that it is uncommon for party goers in a foreign country not to go back to a room and have a holiday? It is the norm.
Is it the norm if someone is in bed sleeping and said hours before he was going to bed? I wouldnt think so. they are friends and have reason to lie. What about the co accused who said sheilds was with him, why would he lie?
Shanks confessed to throwing a brick at someone, big difference in that and what Shields is accused of.
Sounds like the ID parade would have gone against UK law but imo people arent stupid. If I've to go and ID someone at an ID parade seeing someone handcuffed to a radiator isn't going to influence me, I'll know if they're the person I seen or not.
Corn, bulgaria have plenty of 24 hour places (at least the parts i've been) and you can get a drink anywhere (I've drank beer in KFC!) yet you see very few drunk bulgarians.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 12:43:07 PM
QuoteSo are you saying that it is uncommon for party goers in a foreign country not to go back to a room and have a holiday? It is the norm.
Is it the norm if someone is in bed sleeping and said hours before he was going to bed? I wouldnt think so. they are friends and have reason to lie. What about the co accused who said sheilds was with him, why would he lie?
Shanks confessed to throwing a brick at someone, big difference in that and what Shields is accused of.
Sounds like the ID parade would have gone against UK law but imo people arent stupid. If I've to go and ID someone at an ID parade seeing someone handcuffed to a radiator isn't going to influence me, I'll know if they're the person I seen or not.
Corn, bulgaria have plenty of 24 hour places (at least the parts i've been) and you can get a drink anywhere (I've drank beer in KFC!) yet you see very few drunk bulgarians.
But you can't say that those Bulgarinas were not drunk, they may have been the drunk few.
Yes, it is the norm. They went back to his room as a group and he got so drunk that he went to bed. Have you been to these parties, the other people there are not going to say "oh he is asleep, let's go and give him some peace," no they would drink on.
QuoteBut you can't say that those Bulgarinas were not drunk, they may have been the drunk few.
As I said earlier, even if they were drunk seeing an incident like that would sober you up very quickly.
As I said I don't know if he did or did not do it but the investigation was undoubtably a complete and utter farce which wouldn't have even reached a courtroom in this part of the world. When ITV did their documentary a year or two ago officers from the Met in London went over the evidence and said it simply wouldn't stand up in court due to the manner in which the Bulgarian police conducted their investigation. Driving Shields past witnesses in the back of a police car, chaining him up in the lobby of the police station in full view of the public, having him as the only young foreigner in the police line-up along with a number of older locals when they were looking for a foreigner, etc, etc.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 12:43:07 PM
Sounds like the ID parade would have gone against UK law but imo people arent stupid. If I've to go and ID someone at an ID parade seeing someone handcuffed to a radiator isn't going to influence me, I'll know if they're the person I seen or not.
perhaps, but it doesnt explain why there were contradictions in the eye witnesses statements - they differed in picking shields as the person who punched the bulgarian and the person who threw the slab. Also, to make the ID parade more farcical, the eye witnesses were allowed to have a discussion after the lineup. Again, this should have made the ID parade inadmissable.
As I said, the conviction was based solely on the eye witnesses picking shields out of a farcical lineup in which he was the only white. Should have been thrown out. Not to mention the Sankey "confession" and Shield's "Alibi". No matter what you think, can you say he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
The ITV documentary is availabe on youtube, I think it's called Michael Shields - The Fogotten Fan. it's definitely worth a look
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 12:48:57 PM
QuoteBut you can't say that those Bulgarinas were not drunk, they may have been the drunk few.
As I said earlier, even if they were drunk seeing an incident like that would sober you up very quickly.
Don't believe that for a second. Shokcing or not, the alcohol is still in your system. You may think your sobered up, but you don't magically become sober. You are still open to the affects of drink as much.
Nonsense corn you'd be fit to identify someone, you most definitley would know if someone had dark or fair hair. From my experiences in Bulgaria I'd be surprised if any of them were drunk.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 01:15:32 PM
Nonsense corn you'd be fit to identify someone, you most definitley would know if someone had dark or fair hair. From my experiences in Bulgaria I'd be surprised if any of them were drunk.
If you are plutered drunk and you saw the incident it is nonsense to suggest you would automatically be sober and a 100% reliable and able to pick out the minor details.
So you are saying there are no drunk people in Bulgaria or very few. For all you know the witnesses could be alcholics who were paid to lie. It would be the same assumption as saying Micahel's friends are liars.
Maybe I shouldn't have said clearly innocent, but the conviction is clearly unsafe and there's no way he should have been convicted on such shoddy evidence. I have to agree with corn in that I have no doubt everyone would be calling for his release if he was Irish. I remember there was a good deal of sympathy among people I talked to for the boy in Spain who got convicted of murdering a hooker a couple of years back.
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 01:17:31 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 01:15:32 PM
Nonsense corn you'd be fit to identify someone, you most definitley would know if someone had dark or fair hair. From my experiences in Bulgaria I'd be surprised if any of them were drunk.
If you are plutered drunk and you saw the incident it is nonsense to suggest you would automatically be sober and a 100% reliable and able to pick out the minor details.
So you are saying there are no drunk people in Bulgaria or very few. For all you know the witnesses could be alcholics who were paid to lie. It would be the same assumption as saying Micahel's friends are liars.
No it wouldnt corn and for all you know they could be all be stone cold sober.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 01:15:32 PM
Nonsense corn you'd be fit to identify someone, you most definitley would know if someone had dark or fair hair. From my experiences in Bulgaria I'd be surprised if any of them were drunk.
Or if they had a white or cream T-Shirt ::) ::)
yes because white and cream are totally different colours, like red and blue ::)
Most people, particularly men, would describe cream or ivory as white.
It was actually described as a beige rather then cream t-shirt that Shields had. The attacker wore a white shirt.
Now if these Bulgarians were as sober as pints makes out I would imagine they could tell the difference between white and beige and if they couldn't then would you trust them to pick out one overweight English tourist from another.
Not that they had much difficulty anyway as there was only one pasty overweight foreigner in the police lineup to choose from.
Must have been no women as witnesses then, lucky for the prosecution.
Pints, you have picked through this thread and only used what suits yourself. The witnesses have been upstanding citizens out walking their dogs at 5am and couldn't possibly have been drunk. The little fact of a white t-shirt been worn would never have possibily been mentioned to them as opposed to a cream/biege one. You would have a great career in Buglarian law.
To sum up your case: Witnesses = good. Anyone defending Sheilds = bad and lying. ::) ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 01:34:50 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 01:17:31 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 05, 2008, 01:15:32 PM
Nonsense corn you'd be fit to identify someone, you most definitley would know if someone had dark or fair hair. From my experiences in Bulgaria I'd be surprised if any of them were drunk.
If you are plutered drunk and you saw the incident it is nonsense to suggest you would automatically be sober and a 100% reliable and able to pick out the minor details.
So you are saying there are no drunk people in Bulgaria or very few. For all you know the witnesses could be alcholics who were paid to lie. It would be the same assumption as saying Micahel's friends are liars.
No it wouldnt corn and for all you know they could be all be stone cold sober.
My point is that you are making assumptions, such as his friends would not tell the truth. I have said I think he is innocent, maybe I should change that to I suspect he is innocent because there is plenty of evidence to suggest it was him but, for me, the more crucial evidenc esupports his innocence.
GBB, beige is so much different than white and cream.
These colours are all described as beige:
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:tetYYjyQi-lb8M:http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/10257862/Golden_Beige_Polished_Tile.jpg)
(http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:JLoFIS2PzTHAJM:http://www.bathroommarquee.co.uk/gros-scans/beige_marble-scan.jpg)
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:9vXcFKI8JemsNM:http://www.mi-ka.com/i/mer_bursa_beige02.jpg)
I'd call one of those cream, one as white and one as light grey. White/beige/cream - all the same.
Bingobus, I've never looked in to this case before but reading the article a couple of pages back would suggest to me that shields is far from innocent. Nothing has been said since to convince me otherswise. I dont really care either way, it's just the way I'm seeing it.
Can anyone answer this question?
Why did Thompson, who was staying in the next room to Shields, confess that both he & shields attacked the barman?? If Shields was as he stated in bed and nowhere near the incident then how could this happen?
You can blame the Bulgarians for mistaken identity but Thompsons confession can't be explained away so easily.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 02:34:53 PM
Can anyone answer this question?
Why did Thompson, who was staying in the next room to Shields, confess that both he & shields attacked the barman?? If Shields was as he stated in bed and nowhere near the incident then how could this happen?
You can blame the Bulgarians for mistaken identity but Thompsons confession can't be explained away so easily.
Ok ill counter than, why did Shanks confess to it?
To clear up some of the details.
In May 2005, as his heroes flew home from Istanbul with the European Cup, 18-year-old Michael Shields was celebrating 'the greatest night of his life'. But then came a knock on his door, and the start of a nightmare.
Kevin Sampson reports
As the Liverpool hordes poured into the Athens night to right the wrongs of Inzaghi's brace and the cup that got away, one young fan was missing. Michael Shields should have been there for the Champions League final, as he was two years ago in Istanbul. Same teams, but such a different outcome in every way. Eighteen at the time, Shields described the 2005 final as the greatest night of his life. Last Wednesday was one of his worst. As his friends supped a consolation ouzo in Omonia Square, Shields lay on his bed in HM Prison Hindley, trying to blot out all thoughts of football, Liverpool and AC Milan.
Brought up in Mount Vernon on the fringes of Liverpool city centre, Michael was raised on tales of Liverpool FC's former glories from his father, also called Michael. For the younger generation, tales of Liverpool's all-conquering past seemed like legends from a distant time, unlikely ever to return. His father told him of Keegan, Rush and Dalglish. The Reds of 2005 got by with Biscan, Traore and Mellor. Yet Rafael Benitez's misfits dragged themselves against all odds to the Champions League Final on 25 May 2005, and Michael Shields junior - along with countless teenage fans like him - was determined to be there in Istanbul. This was to be the Young Ones final.
On the morning after the semi-finals (just as happened this year) prices for all flights out to the final hit the roof. Faced with costs of £1,000 just to get to Turkey, many fans opted for cheap package trips to the coastal resorts of Bulgaria. A week in the Golden Sands resort on the Black Sea could be had for £230, and Shields decided to head there, with his friends Kieron Dunne, John Unsworth and Karl O'Donnell.
Arriving in the resort, the boys were given room 419 of the Crystal Hotel. Unbeknown to them, room 421, next door, had been allocated to members of another group of travelling fans, including Anthony Wilson and Bradley Thompson. Golden Sands is targeted at a cheap and cheerful British market, with arcades full of fast-food cafes and gaudy bars announcing happy hours that last all day. The boys quickly made themselves familiar with the local nightlife, and evenings would end with boisterous but good-humoured singing at the open-air Big Ben's Cafe, only a short walk from the hotel. Usually, the fans would be served by a popular local barman, Martin Georgiev, who was happy to mingle and take group photos for them.
At no stage did Shields's group befriend Thompson, Wilson or any of their gang - indeed, they steered clear of the group once Thompson and Wilson caused damage to the hotel that led to their being ejected and barred from the premises. Staff there spoke of the 'appalling arrogance' of the two, as well as their companion, a stocky young man called Graham Sankey.
But on the morning of the game there was nothing but high spirits as the majority of those staying in the hotel set off for Istanbul in a coach the hotel staff had helped them charter. Sankey, Wilson and Thompson, who considered themselves to be 'proper' Scousers, seemed keen to dissociate themselves from the football shirt-wearing contingent, and none of the three travelled on the coach. Getting to Istanbul necessitated a 12-hour journey each way, including a two- to three-hour wait at the border for clearance to enter and leave Turkey. But after the euphoria of their team's overturning a 3-0 deficit to go on and win the European Cup, nobody was too bothered about creature comforts on their return journey.
Shields was elated. Here he was, an 18-year-old kid with a story to rank with anything his dad had witnessed. When he got back to the hotel around tea-time on 26 May, he phoned his mother, Marie, and told her Istanbul had been the greatest occasion of his life. She told him she'd have his favourite supper on the go, ready for the sound of his key in the front door. Shields then went to bed to sleep off the fatigue of 24 hours spent in a cramped coach.
The group was due to fly home on 30 May, so plans were hatched for one last night of celebration in the resort. Shields and his group stayed out until about 2am and spent the last of their Bulgarian currency on drinks to bring back to the hotel. Word spread that they were throwing a party and Kevin Glynn, who did not know Shields prior to the Bulgaria trip, went along to join the fun. He states categorically that by 3am, Shields was flat out asleep on his bed, fully clothed and dead to the world.
'Michael was comatose, basically,' Glynn says. 'In fact, we all had a bit of a laugh about how loudly he was snoring.'
Meanwhile, back among the strip of open-air bars, the atmosphere was turning ugly. A big group of Liverpool supporters - mainly families and couples - had arranged a Red Shirt night to celebrate the cup win. A group of youths including Sankey, Wilson and Thompson got into an argument with the 'shirt-wearers'. A few punches were thrown before it all seemed to die down, but another argument flared up outside Big Ben's - the cafe where Martin Georgiev worked. There are different accounts of what happened next, but one witness states: 'I saw two young men running up the centre of the road in the direction of the bar, being chased by this gang of three or four lads. The two lads ran into Big Ben's. One of the lads who was chasing them threw a bottle which smashed in the centre of the road ... there was a fat lad in a white T-shirt with dark hair, and another lad in a striped T-shirt. I'd say they were no more than 5ft 6in to 5ft 7in tall. One of the two lads who had been chased came to the doorway and held his hands above his head and I heard him shout: "We don't want any trouble!"'
At this point, the witness says, he saw Martin Georgiev come out and tell the gang of lads to go away. 'One of the lads started bouncing around on the balls of his feet like a boxer and made his way towards Martin,' he says. 'I saw him strike a blow to Martin's face. Martin must have been immediately knocked out ... He did not move after he hit the floor and remained motionless, face down.' At this time, says the witness, the lad in the white T-shirt appeared from around a parked taxi. 'I then saw him hit Martin on the head with this piece of stone.'
The full eyewitness statement runs to 11 pages, but the essence of the evidence is that at around 5.30am on 30 May 2005, Martin Georgiev was punched to the ground outside his cafe by one man, after which a short, stocky man in a white T-shirt dropped a rock on his head.
Police quickly arrested Graham Sankey and Bradley Thompson. They then returned to room 421 of the Crystal Hotel to arrest Anthony Wilson, but found the room empty. They heard the din from the party next door and demanded entry. The arresting officers had gone to the hotel to apprehend a dark-haired man of some 5ft 6in. They woke Shields - over 6ft tall and blond haired - and demanded he put on a white T-shirt. They then drove him to Big Ben's and parked at the crime scene for 30 minutes, leaving Shields in open view of witnesses still being questioned about the attack. He was then driven to the local police station where he was handcuffed to a radiator for the next 16 hours. During that time, more witnesses to the crime came and went, getting a good look at the young Englishman chained to the wall.
George Gatev, a leading Bulgarian barrister, says this is not unusual procedure for police building a case in his country: 'Essentially, there should be no contact between the eyewitnesses and the suspect. But unfortunately it is common practice for the police here to leave the suspect somewhere where eyewitnesses will pass by and see them.'
Meanwhile, forensic evidence was taken from hairs found on the rock used in the attack on Georgiev. Amazingly, no attempt was made to link that forensic evidence to Shields, even though it would have been a simple enough process - even the most thorough clean-up leaves particles invisible to the naked eye.
The assault on Georgiev was vicious, but Shields did not do it. The case against him was built solely on witness identification and, sadly, that entire process was flawed. Shields was ordered to wear incriminating clothing; driven to the scene of the crime, where people still being interviewed could get a good look at him; handcuffed to a radiator in full view of incoming witnesses; and processed without recourse to forensic examination. There was worse to come. Asked to appear in an ID parade, he was shocked to find only three other 'suspects' in the line-up. He was the only one over 6ft tall. He was the only one with fair hair. And he was the only one dressed in a white T-shirt.
QuoteCan anyone answer this question?
Why did Thompson, who was staying in the next room to Shields, confess that both he & shields attacked the barman?? If Shields was as he stated in bed and nowhere near the incident then how could this happen?
You can blame the Bulgarians for mistaken identity but Thompsons confession can't be explained away so easily.
Ok ill counter than, why did Shanks confess to it?
Sanks confessed to thowing a brick at a crowd of men chasing him, not to dropping a paving brink on the head of a man lying on the ground.
I'll ask it again.
Why would Thompson confess to attacking the barman with Shields? It's the singularly most important question in the whole case. Shields says he was not there - Thompson says he is lying and that he & Shields attacked him. Why?
Good article there, and like the one posted earlier is perhaps a bit biased in its writing. My point is that people should not jump to a conclusion on one article when many more at the other side of the spectrum are yet to be viewed.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 03:22:55 PM
QuoteCan anyone answer this question?
Why did Thompson, who was staying in the next room to Shields, confess that both he & shields attacked the barman?? If Shields was as he stated in bed and nowhere near the incident then how could this happen?
You can blame the Bulgarians for mistaken identity but Thompsons confession can't be explained away so easily.
Ok ill counter than, why did Shanks confess to it?
Sanks confessed to thowing a brick at a crowd of men chasing him, not to dropping a paving brink on the head of a man lying on the ground.
I'll ask it again.
Why would Thompson confess to attacking the barman with Shields? It's the singularly most important question in the whole case. Shields says he was not there - Thompson says he is lying and that he & Shields attacked him. Why?
Shanks was legless and was pushing for a sentence in the UK, why did none of the witnesses see a brick being thrown then?
To suggest that this is not the most important aspect is madness.
Also you said if it was a United fan you would see him plainly as guilty, no disrepsect but I am 100% certain you would have a different outlook. Being Pool fans may cloud our vision here, but you being a United fan is certainly cloudion your rationale as well.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 03:22:55 PM
QuoteCan anyone answer this question?
Why did Thompson, who was staying in the next room to Shields, confess that both he & shields attacked the barman?? If Shields was as he stated in bed and nowhere near the incident then how could this happen?
You can blame the Bulgarians for mistaken identity but Thompsons confession can't be explained away so easily.
Ok ill counter than, why did Shanks confess to it?
Sanks confessed to thowing a brick at a crowd of men chasing him, not to dropping a paving brink on the head of a man lying on the ground.
I'll ask it again.
Why would Thompson confess to attacking the barman with Shields? It's the singularly most important question in the whole case. Shields says he was not there - Thompson says he is lying and that he & Shields attacked him. Why?
Maybe so that his mate would be let off. It has been stated that he has changed his story over time. Why do you place so much reliance on Thompson saying shields did attack him and others saying he didn't and was in bed. Why is one person, who has admited, attacking the victim, more believed than others who didn't attack anyone? Both have interests, getting their mate in the clear.
I think Under The Bar has honestly misread and thinks Thompson was part of Shield's group.
QuoteI think Under The Bar has honestly misread and thinks Thompson was part of Shield's group.
No I didnt, but he was in the next room for a week.
The police investigation was undoubtly an amateur job, like most in Eastern Europe I expect.
My point is a person, who was in the room next to Shields for a week said that he attacked the barman along with Shields.
Maybe Shields did not drop the paving slab on his head, we probably will never know. But it certainly seems as if his story about being in bed was blown out of the water when Thompson said Shileds attacked the barman with him.
I could not give a toss if he was a Tyrone fan. What I would be disappointed in would be if Healy Park held a release him protest with the Tyrone players wearing Tshirts if there was such a gaping hole in his testimony & defence and he admitted lying that his main defense witness was in fact his cousin.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 03:44:42 PM
QuoteI think Under The Bar has honestly misread and thinks Thompson was part of Shield's group.
No I didnt, but he was in the next room for a week.
The police investigation was undoubtly an amateur job, like most in Eastern Europe I expect.
My point is a person, who was in the room next to Shields for a week said that he attacked the barman along with Shields.
Maybe Shields did not drop the paving slab on his head, we probably will never know. But it certainly seems as if his story about being in bed was blown out of the water when Thompson said Shileds attacked the barman with him.
I could not give a toss if he was a Tyrone fan. What I would be disappointed in would be if Healy Park held a release him protest with the Tyrone players wearing Tshirts if there was such a gaping hole in his testimony & defence and he admitted lying that his main defense witness was in fact his cousin.
What has being next to him in a hotel room got to do with anything? That is a non-point.
Quote from: under the bar on December 05, 2008, 03:44:42 PM
QuoteI think Under The Bar has honestly misread and thinks Thompson was part of Shield's group.
No I didnt, but he was in the next room for a week.
The police investigation was undoubtly an amateur job, like most in Eastern Europe I expect.
My point is a person, who was in the room next to Shields for a week said that he attacked the barman along with Shields.
Maybe Shields did not drop the paving slab on his head, we probably will never know. But it certainly seems as if his story about being in bed was blown out of the water when Thompson said Shileds attacked the barman with him.
I could not give a toss if he was a Tyrone fan. What I would be disappointed in would be if Healy Park held a release him protest with the Tyrone players wearing Tshirts if there was such a gaping hole in his testimony & defence and he admitted lying that his main defense witness was in fact his cousin.
Again, why is Thompson such a reliable witness and others aren't? He said he was with him and others have said he wasn't. Thompson did attack the victim and was picked up at the scene. Shields was picked up from his hotel room. I don't see why Thompson's account blows anything out of the water. His account changed and it resulted in his mate getting home out of the country. He may have assumed that Shields would have walked anyway when the truth came out. Maybe he isn't that clever but I wonder why Thompson is so reliable in this instance.
QuoteWhat has being next to him in a hotel room got to do with anything? That is a non-point.
It would infer that they were known to one another and creates an association as to why they would attack the barman together.
Do you honestly belive that Thompson would pretend that the innocent fella next door helped him attack the barman and frame a totally innocent man? Why not just say it weas someon he'd never seen before?
As regards trying to get Sanks off the hook, Thompson did not say that Sheilds dropped the paving slab, only that he attacked the barman with him. This would not neither incriminate Shields for dropping it, nor absolve Sanks.
Having read it all I'd guess that everyone, including Michel Sheils is telling lies of some sort. If he didn't drop the slab he probbaly knows who did and wasn't as far removed from the whole thing as he & his family are making out.
Quote from: StGallsGAA on December 05, 2008, 04:05:13 PM
Having read it all I'd guess that everyone, including Michel Sheils is telling lies of some sort. If he didn't drop the slab he probbaly knows who did and wasn't as far removed from the whole thing as he & his family are making out.
I agree...As I said there is no smoke without fire,I doubt he is as innocent as the Kop would have you believe..
Personally I don't care that he's a Liverpool fan it makes no odds to me...
Know very little about the case and haven't a clue whether he is innocent or not but UTB thats a ridiculous statement...............
QuoteWhat has being next to him in a hotel room got to do with anything? That is a non-point.
It would infer that they were known to one another and creates an association as to why they would attack the barman together.
I have been in multitudes of hotels and I would safely say unless the person in the next room was actually part of my group I would never have a clue who they were nor would I care.
You get a room next door to a complete stranger in a hotel so you are likely to get to know them and subsequently beat the pulp out of a stranger. You really have a chance in the Bulgarian law system!
Agrred Longford, werid point.
Laoislad, that's the crux of it. He could be the man behind the attack but then again he could be 100% innocent and despite the bad procedural ways of the courts, there seems to be a strong possibilty that he is 100% innocent, no smoke without fire is a dangerous cliche to use in this matter.
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:19:12 PM
Agrred Longford, werid point.
Laoislad, that's the crux of it. He could be the man behind the attack but then again he could be 100% innocent and despite the bad procedural ways of the courts, there seems to be a strong possibilty that he is 100% innocent, no smoke without fire is a dangerous cliche to use in this matter.
Maybe it is,but in my opinion I doubt he is either 100% innocent or 100% guilty...I do think he played some part or knows something,I find it hard to believe he was arrested and thrown in jail and is completely innocent,thats why i use that cliche.
To be honest I think the players should stay out of it..
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:19:12 PM
Agrred Longford, werid point.
Laoislad, that's the crux of it. He could be the man behind the attack but then again he could be 100% innocent and despite the bad procedural ways of the courts, there seems to be a strong possibilty that he is 100% innocent, no smoke without fire is a dangerous cliche to use in this matter.
Maybe it is,but in my opinion I doubt he is either 100% innocent or 100% guilty...I do think he played some part or knows something,I find it hard to believe he was arrested and thrown in jail and is completely innocent,thats why i use that cliche.
To be honest I think the players should stay out of it..
That's your opinion, fair enough. But I do think it is churlish to say that he had to be involved somewhere.
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:19:12 PM
Agrred Longford, werid point.
Laoislad, that's the crux of it. He could be the man behind the attack but then again he could be 100% innocent and despite the bad procedural ways of the courts, there seems to be a strong possibilty that he is 100% innocent, no smoke without fire is a dangerous cliche to use in this matter.
Maybe it is,but in my opinion I doubt he is either 100% innocent or 100% guilty...I do think he played some part or knows something,I find it hard to believe he was arrested and thrown in jail and is completely innocent,thats why i use that cliche.
To be honest I think the players should stay out of it..
That's your opinion, fair enough. But I do think it is churlish to say that he had to be involved somewhere.
I just find it hard to believe he wasn't involved somewhere along the line even if its only that he knows who did do it.
I could be totally wrong I know and if I am then fair enough I hope justice is done and he is released,but I just can't help but think he is not as innocent as his supporters would have you believe..
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:34:09 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:19:12 PM
Agrred Longford, werid point.
Laoislad, that's the crux of it. He could be the man behind the attack but then again he could be 100% innocent and despite the bad procedural ways of the courts, there seems to be a strong possibilty that he is 100% innocent, no smoke without fire is a dangerous cliche to use in this matter.
Maybe it is,but in my opinion I doubt he is either 100% innocent or 100% guilty...I do think he played some part or knows something,I find it hard to believe he was arrested and thrown in jail and is completely innocent,thats why i use that cliche.
To be honest I think the players should stay out of it..
That's your opinion, fair enough. But I do think it is churlish to say that he had to be involved somewhere.
I just find it hard to believe he wasn't involved somewhere along the line even if its only that he knows who did do it.
I could be totally wrong I know and if I am then fair enough I hope justice is done and he is released,but I just can't help but think he is not as innocent as his supporters would have you believe..
A good post. There are a lot of Pool fans proclaiming his innocence just because of who he is, which is obviously crazy. Hopefully justice, one way or the other, is served. And I really do hope I am right in thinking he is innocent, otherwise my faith in humanity drops yet again.
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:38:30 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:34:09 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:19:12 PM
Agrred Longford, werid point.
Laoislad, that's the crux of it. He could be the man behind the attack but then again he could be 100% innocent and despite the bad procedural ways of the courts, there seems to be a strong possibilty that he is 100% innocent, no smoke without fire is a dangerous cliche to use in this matter.
Maybe it is,but in my opinion I doubt he is either 100% innocent or 100% guilty...I do think he played some part or knows something,I find it hard to believe he was arrested and thrown in jail and is completely innocent,thats why i use that cliche.
To be honest I think the players should stay out of it..
That's your opinion, fair enough. But I do think it is churlish to say that he had to be involved somewhere.
I just find it hard to believe he wasn't involved somewhere along the line even if its only that he knows who did do it.
I could be totally wrong I know and if I am then fair enough I hope justice is done and he is released,but I just can't help but think he is not as innocent as his supporters would have you believe..
A good post. There are a lot of Pool fans proclaiming his innocence just because of who he is, which is obviously crazy. Hopefully justice, one way or the other, is served. And I really do hope I am right in thinking he is innocent, otherwise my faith in humanity drops yet again.
As I said I don't care who he supports or where he's from,why should anyone? What has it got to do with Liverpool FC ??? f**k all if you ask me and I do think the players should stay away from it
If Fred West had of been a Liverpool fan would Liverpool fans have claimed he was innocent?
I don't see what any of this has got to do with soccer or Liverpool FC.
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:43:35 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:38:30 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:34:09 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:19:12 PM
Agrred Longford, werid point.
Laoislad, that's the crux of it. He could be the man behind the attack but then again he could be 100% innocent and despite the bad procedural ways of the courts, there seems to be a strong possibilty that he is 100% innocent, no smoke without fire is a dangerous cliche to use in this matter.
Maybe it is,but in my opinion I doubt he is either 100% innocent or 100% guilty...I do think he played some part or knows something,I find it hard to believe he was arrested and thrown in jail and is completely innocent,thats why i use that cliche.
To be honest I think the players should stay out of it..
That's your opinion, fair enough. But I do think it is churlish to say that he had to be involved somewhere.
I just find it hard to believe he wasn't involved somewhere along the line even if its only that he knows who did do it.
I could be totally wrong I know and if I am then fair enough I hope justice is done and he is released,but I just can't help but think he is not as innocent as his supporters would have you believe..
A good post. There are a lot of Pool fans proclaiming his innocence just because of who he is, which is obviously crazy. Hopefully justice, one way or the other, is served. And I really do hope I am right in thinking he is innocent, otherwise my faith in humanity drops yet again.
As I said I don't care who he supports or where he's from,why should anyone? What has it got to do with Liverpool FC ??? f**k all if you ask me and I do think the players should stay away from it
If Fred West had of been a Liverpool fan would Liverpool fans have claimed he was innocent?
I don't see what any of this have got to do with soccer or Liverpool FC.
A Liverpool fan, from a Liverpool-supporting family. A man who was on his trip to Istanbul when this happened, I think it has quite a lot to do with Liverpool FC.
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:45:18 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:43:35 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:38:30 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:34:09 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on December 05, 2008, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 05, 2008, 04:19:12 PM
Agrred Longford, werid point.
Laoislad, that's the crux of it. He could be the man behind the attack but then again he could be 100% innocent and despite the bad procedural ways of the courts, there seems to be a strong possibilty that he is 100% innocent, no smoke without fire is a dangerous cliche to use in this matter.
Maybe it is,but in my opinion I doubt he is either 100% innocent or 100% guilty...I do think he played some part or knows something,I find it hard to believe he was arrested and thrown in jail and is completely innocent,thats why i use that cliche.
To be honest I think the players should stay out of it..
That's your opinion, fair enough. But I do think it is churlish to say that he had to be involved somewhere.
I just find it hard to believe he wasn't involved somewhere along the line even if its only that he knows who did do it.
I could be totally wrong I know and if I am then fair enough I hope justice is done and he is released,but I just can't help but think he is not as innocent as his supporters would have you believe..
A good post. There are a lot of Pool fans proclaiming his innocence just because of who he is, which is obviously crazy. Hopefully justice, one way or the other, is served. And I really do hope I am right in thinking he is innocent, otherwise my faith in humanity drops yet again.
As I said I don't care who he supports or where he's from,why should anyone? What has it got to do with Liverpool FC ??? f**k all if you ask me and I do think the players should stay away from it
If Fred West had of been a Liverpool fan would Liverpool fans have claimed he was innocent?
I don't see what any of this have got to do with soccer or Liverpool FC.
A Liverpool fan, from a Liverpool-supporting family. A man who was on his trip to Istanbul when this happened, I think it has quite a lot to do with Liverpool FC.
Sorry corn but I just can't buy into that way of thinking.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who regularly attend Liverpool matches every week who are involved in and have committed a crime and pleaded innocence,it doesn't mean Liverpool FC should be associated with it..
I don't see what it has got to do with Liverpool..
The basis for Liverpool fc getting involved is prob to do with requests from family and those involved with the campaign. The SOS have taken a big interest in it and that would lead to more involvement from fans and the local players such as Carra who would have ties with SOS. I am sure that they have satisfied themselves that he has a strong case and are willing to back his case for his beenfit. The Bishop of Liverpool has also backed his case, should be getting involved. From his familys point of view the higher profile they can get for him the better. There is obviously a link to LFC and if both sides are happy to do so, it isn't our place from afar to judge them on it.
As for Shields knowing more than he is saying, it may be a case that as far as he is concerned Sankey did it. It may also be acse of protecting his family, who have been victims of intimidation over the last year as the case as progressed. This included the burning of the family car outside their home and threats to his sister on a regular basis.
Im not going to say much more on this but for those interested, below are links to both the ITV & BBC documentarys. Both are worth watching - the ITV one explores the police investigation and for me, confirms that the case should have been thrown out. Again, Im not saying Shield's is innocent of the crime. The BBC one has some interesting interviews including one with the Bulgarian Georgiev, who is absolutely certain it was Shields. Interestingly, the BBC documentary shows footage of an MP reading a statement from thompson claiming it was Shankey who dropped the slab on Georgiev, which conflicts with the statements quoted on this thread. Make of that, what you will.
Anyway, I believe the high court have reserved judgement on Shield's request for a pardon, so the saga continues.
ITV Documentary - The Forgotten Fan
Part 1: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia2F0n5WUTI
Part 2: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0zFPX9-jPDE
Part 3: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=V8otoaGxSqU
Part 4: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gzG1nEg8pcQ
BBCs Inside Out Documentary
Part 1: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h7E5aTqP76Y
Part 2: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gtFIspCPvFA
Part 3: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=w9OyX3SKczY
Whoever it was that stated Georgiev is only certain it was Shileds to make sure of the compensation is no better than the person who threw the paving slab in my eyes.
That is a farce lads. 4 witnesses pick him out of a 4 man line up with 3 bulgarians and 1 scouser. They pick out the scouser. Of these 4 witnesses 2 of them say Shields threw the rock and 2 initially say he threw the punch. He can't be both of these people, therefore he can't have been either of these people.
Having read all of the posts here and done a little bit more research I don't know why the Liverpool players and club are 100% behind this guy. He is a convicted felon (attempted murder) until he is pardoned (if he ever is). The club should not be getting involved and Setanta should never have broadcast the footage of the protest.
My take on the whole thing is that this lad probably would not have been convicted in the UK or Ireland. Not because he isn't guilty; but because of the behaviour of the police while collecting evidence. In common terms a technicality.
I really don't know if he is guilty or not so in common law I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: StGallsGAA on December 05, 2008, 07:01:13 PM
Whoever it was that stated Georgiev is only certain it was Shileds to make sure of the compensation is no better than the person who threw the paving slab in my eyes.
Agreed.
Quote from: corn02 on December 06, 2008, 11:59:22 AM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on December 05, 2008, 07:01:13 PM
Whoever it was that stated Georgiev is only certain it was Shileds to make sure of the compensation is no better than the person who threw the paving slab in my eyes.
Agreed.
Surely it's bollocks as well as insensitive. How would any compensation be dependent on him accusing Shields of the crime?
Quote from: Rav67 on December 06, 2008, 12:02:24 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 06, 2008, 11:59:22 AM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on December 05, 2008, 07:01:13 PM
Whoever it was that stated Georgiev is only certain it was Shileds to make sure of the compensation is no better than the person who threw the paving slab in my eyes.
Agreed.
Surely it's bollocks as well as insensitive. How would any compensation be dependent on him accusing Shields of the crime?
True? You still across the sea Rav?
Quote from: Rav67 on December 06, 2008, 12:02:24 PM
Quote from: corn02 on December 06, 2008, 11:59:22 AM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on December 05, 2008, 07:01:13 PM
Whoever it was that stated Georgiev is only certain it was Shileds to make sure of the compensation is no better than the person who threw the paving slab in my eyes.
Agreed.
Surely it's bollocks as well as insensitive. How would any compensation be dependent on him accusing Shields of the crime?
While it might be bollocks, I had heard in Bulgarian law a conviction is necessary for someone to recieve compensation, though it was through this incident i heard it so it may not be accurate.
It seems Jack Straw can let him out if he wants
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7788070.stm
Quote from: AFS on December 17, 2008, 06:20:28 PM
It seems Jack Straw can let him out if he wants
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7788070.stm
I thought Straw had been given licence to pardon him before, I read an article by Brian Reade in the Mirror about 2 months ago which suggested that he could and attacked Straw for not doing it.
Corn02- still across the wahter, working down in Bournemouth. You still plugging away trying to become the new Paddy Heaney?
The Bishop of Liverpool was on the wireless earlier calling for a Judge to review the case. I'd say that's what Jack Straw will do. The review will take a year or 18 months.
Straw is worried that the transfer of British prisoners from foreign prisons will stop if they believe he will just pardon them.
Quote from: Rav67 on December 18, 2008, 01:29:36 AM
Quote from: AFS on December 17, 2008, 06:20:28 PM
It seems Jack Straw can let him out if he wants
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7788070.stm
I thought Straw had been given licence to pardon him before, I read an article by Brian Reade in the Mirror about 2 months ago which suggested that he could and attacked Straw for not doing it.
Corn02- still across the wahter, working down in Bournemouth. You still plugging away trying to become the new Paddy Heaney?
Still trying and failing. ;)
A review should probably be the right course of action. Obviously I would want a full pardon, but I would rather it comes at the end of the review which collects enough evidence to show it was a shambles instead of just being down to people-power in Liverpool.