Liverpool Players supporting Michael Shields

[bingobus]

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.    

[corn02]

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.

[pintsofguinness]

GBB, beige is so much different than white and cream.

These colours are all described as beige:







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.

[under the bar]

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. 

[corn02]

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?

[GalwayBayBoy]

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.

[under the bar]

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?

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?

[corn02]

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.

[corn02]

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?

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.

[bingobus]

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?

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.

[corn02]

I think Under The Bar has honestly misread and thinks Thompson was part of Shield's group.

[under the bar]

I 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.

[corn02]

I 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.

[bingobus]

I 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.

[under the bar]

What 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.