The forgotten Fan. A tonight Special ITV@9.45 tonight

Aquos76

A special on Michael Shields.

The young Liverpool fan arrested in the wake of the club's 2005 Champions League final victory, he is serving a 15-year sentence in Bulgaria for attempted murder - though he has always protested his innocence.

Lets hope its make some sort of impact.

BillyBoy

Going to give it a look. could be interesting

Spider_Baby!

Someone else admitted to the murder, too - thats what it said in the ad anyway!

Aquos76

So far, its very good. The poor fellow was really set up.

Aquos76

Very well made documentary on this poor lads ordeal. You would have to admire his determination to stick by his original statement and not to admit to some form of involvement.

Lets hope he gets his re-trial and that he will be allowed to return home totally cleared of this farce.

BillyBoy

Its hard to believe that the young lad was convicted in the first place. Nothing really suggested that he did it. I know Bulgaria may be backward but jesus that conviction was ridiculous.

county

balls just got the last 2 mins,will it be repeated?

BillyBoy

It didn't say anything at the end about it being repeated unfortunately. Everybody should get a chance to see this farce of a court case

p.pete

Dammit, we watched CSI in my house :mad:
I'll have to try find some decent writeups on it later...

Big Nelly

Was ok, feel sorry for the lad but some of the story is made up. Like his mates came into the room and where drinking away while he slept? they where making jokes about him snoring? dont think so, that part was certainly made up.

Now Im not saying he done it but there is a few holes in his story. Also the detective that was on the show last night was a joke. Just taking a swipe at the Bulgaria police to be honest, he just kept going back to how the UK police where so much better in the 60's etc???? yeah thats why you had so many Irish in your jails for bombing they never done!!! the UK police are worse than any Bulgaria police officer would ever be. He was just there going on about how great the UK police system is.......they are a joke and always will be...

Wasnt impressed at all by the show, could have been done alot better and the secret witness at the end was a joke. If he was so embrassed that he hadnt shown up for the court case in the first place then why hide his face? that was a joke. Also you think in the re-inactment they could have got someone who looked a little bit like Sheilds? the guy they had was about 10 stone lighter than him.

cournioni

Very little sympathy shown to the real victim and his family in this case, that is what I took from this show. Especially the "detective" re-inacting the dropping of the rock. I mean ffs! Imagine if the victims family had seen that.

If Shields was innocent, then I sympathise with him. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time etc. But I have to agree with alot of what Nelly said. Alot of it seemed like it was made up. I don't think many Liverpool fans were spending alot of time in their bedrooms joking about snoring after winning the Champions League.

That Sankey fellow seems like a right scumbag by the way.

TheMonster

Didn't see the program but heres an article I read last year about it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/07/nshield07.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/07/ixhome.html

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."

Michael Shields in his prison cell in Bulagaria. He claims he was asleep in his hotel at the time of the attack


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.


Supporter: Liverpool footballer Jamie Carragher dedicated his first goal in six years to Michael Shields

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.

TheMonster

Part 2

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."

p.pete

Big Nelly wrote:

Was ok, feel sorry for the lad but some of the story is made up. Like his mates came into the room and where drinking away while he slept? they where making jokes about him snoring? dont think so, that part was certainly made up.

What are you basing that on?
There was huge amounts of travel involved to get to the match, an emotionally draining final followed by a huge high - all of it likely accompanied by alcohol, they then get back to Bulgaria after yet more traveling and most likely a lot of celebration. You don't think it's plausible that he crashed and snored his head off?

Big Nelly wrote:

Also the detective that was on the show last night was a joke.

Peter Coles, former head of Nottinghamshire Police's Serious Crime Squad.

Big Nelly

p.pete wrote:

What are you basing that on?
There was huge amounts of travel involved to get to the match, an emotionally draining final followed by a huge high - all of it likely accompanied by alcohol, they then get back to Bulgaria after yet more traveling and most likely a lot of celebration. You don't think it's plausible that he crashed and snored his head off?

Im not saying he did anything, but the story just didnt add up. They where making out that the sun shined out of his ass to be honest. Never in trouble with police etc.

The reporting last night was terrible to be honest, as mentioned above nothing was said about the poor bloke with his head smashed in just about the poor Liverpool fan in jail.

p.pete wrote:

Peter Coles, former head of Nottinghamshire Police's Serious Crime Squad.

Thats great isnt it? maybe he was the head of the group of cops that put all those Irish in prison for years when they where innocent???????

super_furry

Big Nelly wrote:

Thats great isnt it? maybe he was the head of the group of cops that put all those Irish in prison for years when they where innocent???????

Yeah, but why stop at injustices of the 60s and 70s? Sure isn't this another great chance to have a go at the Brits? What about the famine? You can work that one in too.

You must have some chip on your shoulder.

Big Nelly

super_furry wrote:

Yeah, but why stop at injustices of the 60s and 70s? Sure isn't this another great chance to have a go at the Brits? What about the famine? You can work that one in too.

You must have some chip on your shoulder.

Did you watch the program? he spent the entire time going on about how crap the bulgaria police courts etc are and how great the British system is. My point is that the english with the great systems have had people for years in jail for no reason but he forgot to mention this and just had a go at the Bulgaria police and how if it was in the UK then this would never happen.........seems he is having some memory loss

p.pete

Big Nelly wrote:

Im not saying he did anything, but the story just didnt add up. They where making out that the sun shined out of his ass to be honest. Never in trouble with police etc.

No, you said something different

Big Nelly wrote:

Like his mates came into the room and where drinking away while he slept? they where making jokes about him snoring? dont think so, that part was certainly made up.

You accused him of being untruthful (I await your response saying that's not what you said). I asked you what you were basing it on and also gave you a plausible explanation - which you ignored.

Big Nelly

p.pete wrote:

No, you said something different

You accused him of being untruthful (I await your response saying that's not what you said). I asked you what you were basing it on and also gave you a plausible explanation - which you ignored.

Yeah as I said the story just doesnt add up. Again I am not saying it was him that attacked the person but I think he is lying abit to try and cover up something. Maybe he was an on looker or something but people just climbing in your window in the middle of the night etc seemed very untruthful.

Watch the program again, seems like something is being covered up. The "witness" at the end was a joke. Not having a go at the guy in jail but at the show itself. It came across very bad. They left out bits of info and the "police detective" was a disaster.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Big Nelly wrote:

Was ok, feel sorry for the lad but some of the story is made up. Like his mates came into the room and where drinking away while he slept? they where making jokes about him snoring? dont think so, that part was certainly made up.

Have you some kind of new evidence that suggests that this was all made up then ? I assume since you were there you know that him and his mates made all of this up and that in fact when he was asleep with four witnesses, he was actually off smashing in some guys head with a rock. You should seriously have a think about what you type before you type it or at least prefix it with IMO to get across the point that really you have no idea what you are talking about but you want to have a go.

p.pete

Big Nelly wrote:

Yeah as I said the story just doesnt add up.

Your saying it doesn't add up, but you are also saying very specific parts have been fabricated. Just to remind you of what you said again:

Big Nelly wrote:

Like his mates came into the room and where drinking away while he slept? they where making jokes about him snoring? dont think so, that part was certainly made up.

Big Nelly wrote:

Again I am not saying it was him that attacked the person but I think he is lying abit to try and cover up something. Maybe he was an on looker or something but people just climbing in your window in the middle of the night etc seemed very untruthful.

I've given you a very plausible explanation as to why he might have been asleep (which you've ignored) and now you're accusing him of being a witness?

Big Nelly

p.pete wrote:

I've given you a very plausible explanation as to why he might have been asleep (which you've ignored) and now you're accusing him of being a witness?

Take a chill pill, just because I said it wasnt the greatest program and the story wasnt told the best dosent mean I am attacking Liverpool supporters. Usual Liverpool atitude anyway, ahh sure it couldnt have been a liverpool fan.

Lets remind you it was a group of Liverpool fans that nearly killed this poor bloke, the story last night that was told by the show was full of holes. You made the excuse that he was travelling all day and thats why he was in bed. Seems all the rest of his mates where up and about, with one of them out on the town and came back to the hotel. Is it not reasonable to think that these friends also had the same amount of alcohol etc as he did and they where still awake.

The way the show told it last night was that he was a poor angel that the big bad police in a foreign country have blamed everything on for no reason. Again I am not saying he done this, or witnessed it but the story told by the show was terrible.

If he was asleep was this from drinking too much? where had he being drinking etc? this was not answered. You trying to tell me after the jubilation of winnning the champions league that they all went back to the hotel and went to sleep without hitting the town for some local cheap beer and to join in with the rest of the Liverpool fans in celebration?? no chance.

PHB

Bulgaria and Romania will join the EU on 1 January 2007
Their legal system is not a joke, it is very very fair, and has to be for them to be allowed join the EU. Their standerd of evidence is near our standerd of evidence. It is very easy to dramatise a court room and a court procedding to make somebody look innocent or guilty.

cournioni

Big Nelly wrote:

Usual Liverpool atitude anyway, ahh sure it couldnt have been a liverpool fan.

Wasn't it a Liverpool fan regardless of whether it was Shields or not though? That is the description the show gave last night anyway...

Besides, wasn't he picked out by eye witnesses at an identity parade? I know that they explained on the show last night that none of the people in the identity parade resembled each other, but why would someone go "ah sure I think I'll pick out that lad there, he looks guilty" rather than say "it was none of them". That is what I cannot understand.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Are you serious PHB, what experiences of the Bulgarian judicial system do you have that you can say that it is "very very fair" ? Do you even know what you are talking about ? They put live pictures out of the courtroom after which a number of other "eye-witnesses" came forward to identify shields. The people in the line-up were allowed to confer both before and after the line-up. Of the four people who were the original eye witnesses, one did not pick him out, and the other three changed their story between he was the one that originally hit him to the one that threw the rock, so now there are eye witnesses giving conflicting evidence however this was not allowed to be mentioned at the trial. Somebody else owned up to the crime aswell, if that happened in any other country in the EU there would at least have been a retrial due to new evidence at the very least.

p.pete

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Wasn't it a Liverpool fan regardless of whether it was Shields or not though? That is the description the show gave last night anyway...

Yup, presuming the guy who confessed wasn't lying...

Big Nelly

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Are you serious PHB ? Do you even know what you are talking about ? They put live pictures out of the courtroom after which a number of other "eye-witnesses" came forward to identify shields. The people in the line-up were allowed to confer both before and after the line-up. Of the four people who were the original eye witnesses, one did not pick him out, and the other three changed their story between he was the one that originally hit him to the one that threw the rock, so now there are eye witnesses giving conflicting evidence however this was not allowed to be mentioned at the trial. Somebody else owned up to the crime aswell, if that happened in any other country in the EU there would at least have been a retrial due to new evidence at the very least.

How long did the English government wait till they gave the Guilford 4 a re-trial even thou they knew all along that they where innocent?

Cant just attack the Bulgaria legal system and make out that the rest of the EU legal system is great because it is far from it.

Again alot of the story wasnt told last night. They just picked out bits and pieces to dramatize the story etc. They only told the story from one persons view, they didnt tell the whole story so you cant really base your judgement on the TV show last night

p.pete

Big Nelly wrote:

Again alot of the story wasnt told last night. They just picked out bits and pieces to dramatize the story etc. They only told the story from one persons view, they didnt tell the whole story so you cant really base your judgement on the TV show last night

Whereas your accusations that key parts of their story were "certainly made up" and also that Mr Shields was "maybe" a witness to the event are based on what?

Big Nelly

p.pete wrote:

Whereas your accusations that key parts of their story were "certainly made up" and also that Mr Shields was "maybe" a witness to the event are based on what?

Again who is accusing anyone? I said it seemed like parts of the story are untrue. Did you watch the program or just going on a rant because it involves Liverpool? the program was terrible and as I mentioned above half the story wasnt told and it was full of holes. If you want to believe Shields is a little angel then by all means you do that. Some of us might actually realise that a load of fans on a high after a very tense game will not head straight to bed.

Thanx 4 The Fish

I have not, I have based it on what I have read of the trial and proceedings to date in various newspapers and websites. What I have not done is question the validitiy of individual witnesses, I have not said, XYZ is a liar, as you have foolishly done. I have said that xyz had a chance to chat with others about the decisions he was making and that witness xyz picked somebody different to witness zyx and that another witness picked Shields out but for a seperate offence - originally striking the guy who was hurt. Hell the guy who was originally hit said it was shields who punched him and then later changed his story to say that in fact it was shields who dropped the rock, anything ringing any alarm bells yet NELLY ?.

Also I have not attacked the legal system I have gone through the failings in this particular trial and pointed out some anomalies that have come to light. I have not said anywhere that the Bulgarian legal system is crap, as I know bugger all about it, I have not done as PHB has done and despite knowing damn all about it say that it is a very very good legal system, just for the sake of saying something either.

You I think are the only one who has said that any of the witnesses are liars. You have repeatedly questioned the actions of 5 people who have had the same story from the start yet you do not question the actions of many people who have changed and re-changed their stories throughout. And just to shut you up, this has nothing to do with Guildford or the birmingham 6 or the yourkshire ripper or The killers of Jean Charles De Menezes, this ia a sungular trial. Taking the whole of one legal system to taks for the failings of a trial in a different country is ludicrous, this whole case is about one fan who is wrongly imprisoned, worngly because there is somebody else who has admitted to the crime and an eye-witness who sais that he saw a man matching Sankeys descritption perpetrating the act. This information was not avaolable at the time of the trial and is now, making it ne evidence and so the basis for a re-trial.

Big Nelly

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

I have not, I have based it on what I have read of the trial and proceedings to date in various newspapers and websites. What I have not done is question the validitiy of individual witnesses, I have not said, XYZ is a liar, as you have foolishly done. I have said that xyz had a chance to chat with others about the decisions he was making and that witness xyz picked somebody different to witness zyx and that another witness picked Shields out but for a seperate offence - originally striking the guy who was hurt. Hell the guy who was originally hit said it was shields who punched him and then later changed his story to say that in fact it was shields who dropped the rock, anything ringing any alarm bells yet NELLY ?.

No alarm bells, sorry in work and unless the fire alarm goes off we dont do bells. I have not researched this and I couldnt give 2 sh*ts if Shields is innocent or not, again I am refering to the program last night. Nothing else. Does everyone on here have a chip on there shoulder when Liverpool is mentioned????

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Also I have not attacked the legal system I have gone through the failings in this particular trial and pointed out some anomalies that have come to light. I have not said anywhere that the Bulgarian legal system is crap, as I know bugger all about it, I have not done as PHB has done and despite knowing damn all about it say that it is a very very good legal system, just for the sake of saying something either.

Watch the program, from the first minute it was an attack on the BUlgaria legal system.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

You I think are the only one who has said that any of the witnesses are liars. You have repeatedly questioned the actions of 5 people who have had the same story from the start yet you do not question the actions of many people who have changed and re-changed their stories throughout. And just to shut you up, this has nothing to do with Guildford or the birmingham 6 or the yourkshire ripper or The killers of Jean Charles De Menezes, this ia a sungular trial. Taking the whole of one legal system to taks for the failings of a trial in a different country is ludicrous, this whole case is about one fan who is wrongly imprisoned, worngly because there is somebody else who has admitted to the crime and an eye-witness who sais that he saw a man matching Sankeys descritption perpetrating the act. This information was not avaolable at the time of the trial and is now, making it ne evidence and so the basis for a re-trial.

Shut me up? why. Because I made a valid point in regards to a TV program??? watch it again and from the first moment the detective goes on about how this would never happen in the UK with there English legal system. My point is again in reference to the program the detective was constantly going on about this would never happen in the UK but sure didnt they do it to numerous Irish people? they locked them up and threw away the key for no reason except they where Irish. Now he goes on TV and trys to make out when something similiar happens in a foreign country it is a disgrace. The only difference in these two cases is that Shields was locked up for being a Liverpool fan and the Guilford 4 etc where locked up for being Irish.

p.pete

Big Nelly wrote:

Again who is accusing anyone?

you.

I said it seemed like parts of the story are untrue.

no, you said parts were "certainly" untrue, no seems about it. Key parts of the story at that!

Did you watch the program

I've already said that we were watching CSI in my house (compromise seeming as not everyone wanted to watch football all night).

or just going on a rant because it involves Liverpool?

Where have I ranted? I've merely being disecting your ludicrous comments.

the program was terrible and as I mentioned above half the story wasnt told and it was full of holes.

If you have other sources you want to bring into this then feel free...

If you want to believe Shields is a little angel then by all means you do that.

Where have I indicated that's something I want to do. I don't care if he's a proper nasty person, that shouldn't have a bearing on a murder case.

Some of us might actually realise that a load of fans on a high after a very tense game will not head straight to bed.

I've no doubt they celebrated, who ever said they went straight to bed, that's just absurd Big Nelly.

Guy:Incognito

PORNAPSTER wrote:

I don't think many Liverpool fans were spending alot of time in their bedrooms joking about snoring after winning the Champions League..

It was on the 30th may that the attack happened. Most of teh celebrating had died down by then and moved to Liverpool.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Big Nelly wrote:

Shut me up? why. Because I made a valid point in regards to a TV program??? watch it again and from the first moment the detective goes on about how this would never happen in the UK with there English legal system. My point is again in reference to the program the detective was constantly going on about this would never happen in the UK but sure didnt they do it to numerous Irish people? they locked them up and threw away the key for no reason except they where Irish. Now he goes on TV and trys to make out when something similiar happens in a foreign country it is a disgrace. The only difference in these two cases is that Shields was locked up for being a Liverpool fan and the Guilford 4 etc where locked up for being Irish.

If you feel that the program is an attack only on the Bulgarian judicial systme then whey did you deem it necessary to attack the person in jail, saying that he was a liar and that the four people who also back up his story are liars. TBH i do not think you know what you want to attack, you just see something LIverpool bend over a little stick some fingers out of the side of your head and charge, ranting away until your bile is exhausted. You have meandered though this thread from firstly saying shield is a liar to then say that the guildford 4 were not given a retrial by the government despite it being the courts who decide who get retrials to then saying that the Investigator involved in the case was probably involved in the guildford 4 case and on and on with more rubbish than I care to harp back to.

Do you even know what your point is on this thread, because you are arguing so many corners now it must be a little tiring for you.

Big Nelly

p.pete wrote:

I've already said that we were watching CSI in my house (compromise seeming as not everyone wanted to watch football all night).

If you didnt watch the program then why the bloody hell are you on here argueing with me when I cleared stated I was talking in regards to last nights program. If you didnt watch then how have you a clue what I am talking about? Some people:rolleyes:

Thanx 4 The Fish

I would imagine it is quoite easy to argue with you nelly, you have made so many downright stupid comments on this thread that my son could probably come on here and refute many of your claims which have bugger all to do with the program and more to do with your bias.

Big Nelly

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

If you feel that the program is an attack only on the Bulgarian judicial systme then whey did you deem it necessary to attack the person in jail, saying that he was a liar and that the four people who also back up his story are liars. TBH i do not think you know what you want to attack, you just see something LIverpool bend over a little stick some fingers out of the side of your head and charge, ranting away until your bile is exhausted. You have meandered though this thread from firstly saying shield is a liar to then say that the guildford 4 were not given a retrial by the government despite it being the courts who decide who get retrials to then saying that the Investigator involved in the case was probably involved in the guildford 4 case and on and on with more rubbish than I care to harp back to.

Do you even know what your point is on this thread, because you are arguing so many corners now it must be a little tiring for you.

Ahh grow up for once in your life. Everytime anyone posts on a Liverpool you get the usual crap from you or some other Liverpool fan. Did you watch the program? they attacked the legal system from the first minute but sure I supposed you missed that while you where crying over the poor Liverpool supporter. God love the poor man with the smashed in head.

Who did I call a liar? I mentioned the story seemed abit made up from the show last night. Never said they where lying but that the show was terrible, as usual you see someone not agreeing with a Liverpool fan and start spouting about how I am always attacking the poor liverpool people on here. God love them I am terrible to them. Pity there is no sign of you around when a Liverpool starts spouting crap about me and my family on here. Guess you missed that thread

Jivin Turkey

Big Nelly wrote:

My point is again in reference to the program the detective was constantly going on about this would never happen in the UK but sure didnt they do it to numerous Irish people? they locked them up and threw away the key for no reason except they where Irish.

Decades ago, in times of incredible trouble. No excuse, but very different circumstances.

Big Nelly wrote:

The only difference in these two cases is that Shields was locked up for being a Liverpool fan and the Guilford 4 etc where locked up for being Irish.

What a load of garbage. There are huge differences between the cases. If I werew you I would not even try and engage anyone in the similarities between the two.

Big Nelly

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Decades ago, in times of incredible trouble. No excuse, but very different circumstances.

Well according to the Dectective, his words now, this wouldnt never of happened even in the 60's with the English legal system

Thanx 4 The Fish

Big Nelly wrote:

Ahh grow up for once in your life. Everytime anyone posts on a Liverpool you get the usual crap from you or some other Liverpool fan. Did you watch the program? they attacked the legal system from the first minute but sure I supposed you missed that while you where crying over the poor Liverpool supporter. God love the poor man with the smashed in head.

Who did I call a liar? I mentioned the story seemed abit made up from the show last night. Never said they where lying but that the show was terrible, as usual you see someone not agreeing with a Liverpool fan and start spouting about how I am always attacking the poor liverpool people on here. God love them I am terrible to them. Pity there is no sign of you around when a Liverpool starts spouting crap about me and my family on here. Guess you missed that thread

Do you even read your own posts. You accused somebody of lying, you did not say seemed, you said certainly when you said that his story was made up. You should perhaps recap upon your own psts then think for a minute then don't post. Now that would be an achievement. Have you ever heard the expression that starts "when you're in a hole"

As fpr me being childish, you are acting like a child, changing your story to suti your argument and never admitting anything that you may be culpable of. TBH if you thought before you posted people may actually give you some credence.

Jivin Turkey

Big Nelly wrote:

Usual Liverpool atitude anyway, ahh sure it couldnt have been a liverpool fan.

And the usual high horse from you. I don't think there is any doubt that it was not a Liverpool fan, just not the one convicted.

Big Nelly wrote:

Lets remind you it was a group of Liverpool fans that nearly killed this poor bloke, the story last night that was told by the show was full of holes. You made the excuse that he was travelling all day and thats why he was in bed. Seems all the rest of his mates where up and about, with one of them out on the town and came back to the hotel. Is it not reasonable to think that these friends also had the same amount of alcohol etc as he did and they where still awake.

The way the show told it last night was that he was a poor angel that the big bad police in a foreign country have blamed everything on for no reason. Again I am not saying he done this, or witnessed it but the story told by the show was terrible.

If he was asleep was this from drinking too much? where had he being drinking etc? this was not answered. You trying to tell me after the jubilation of winnning the champions league that they all went back to the hotel and went to sleep without hitting the town for some local cheap beer and to join in with the rest of the Liverpool fans in celebration?? no chance.

This is a great point seeing as the attack was four days after the final.

Big Nelly wrote:

half the story wasnt told and it was full of holes.

Seeing as you know this for a FACT how about you tell us the other half so?

Big Nelly wrote:

If you want to believe Shields is a little angel then by all means you do that. Some of us might actually realise that a load of fans on a high after a very tense game will not head straight to bed.

As I said above, it was four days after the game, so yes he could well be a little angel.

Big Nelly

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Do you even read your own posts. You accused somebody of lying, you did not say seemed, you said certainly when you said that his story was made up. You should perhaps recap upon your own psts then think for a minute then don't post. Now that would be an achievement. Have you ever heard the expression that starts "when you're in a hole"

As fpr me being childish, you are acting like a child, changing your story to suti your argument and never admitting anything that you may be culpable of. TBH if you thought before you posted people may actually give you some credence.

Wonder if I stuck YNWA or something like that in my sig would this change. Ok to agree with you of course he is innocent. He went straight to bed after travelling from the game. The bad person in Bulgaria jumped onto that rock and then made out it was Liverpool fans who of course would never do anything like that. It was all the bad people in Bulgaria. Horrible they are. Taking advantage of a good little boy who was never in trouble before in his life. A liverpool fan would never hurt a soul or attack an ambulance outside of a ground with a player inside it with a broken leg.
Happy now?

Big Nelly

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Seeing as you know this for a FACT how about you tell us the other half so?

Well they could have explained why he was in bed and didnt wake up with his mates in the room drinking with lights on etc. It would suggest he was drunk, so if he was drunk then where was he drinking? thats just one point.

Jivin Turkey wrote:

This is a great point seeing as the attack was four days after the final.

Well from the TV program they made out he got the bus straight from the game and went straight to bed when he got to the hotel. There was no mention if it was the next day or anything.

p.pete

Big Nelly wrote:

If you didnt watch the program then why the bloody hell are you on here argueing with me when I cleared stated I was talking in regards to last nights program. If you didnt watch then how have you a clue what I am talking about? Some people:rolleyes:

Because your original comment in your original post in this thread was:

Big Nelly wrote:

Was ok, feel sorry for the lad but some of the story is made up. Like his mates came into the room and where drinking away while he slept? they where making jokes about him snoring? dont think so, that part was certainly made up.

I've highlighted two parts of your post there.
The first part you're referring to the programme, you're actually indicating it wasn't too bad at that stage - of course later on it suits you to change your story.
The second part isn't an atack on the programme but an attack on evidence in a court case - basicly accusing it of being false, people of fabricating their story.

Do I need to have seen the programme to take issue with that?

Also, later on where you say Michael Shields was "maybe" a witness to the murder - do I need to have seen the programme to comment on that? I'm pretty sure that wasn't part of the programme so if you've any source which led you to that possibility, please share...

Guy:Incognito

Big Nelly wrote:

Wonder if I stuck YNWA or something like that in my sig would this change. Ok to agree with you of course he is innocent. He went straight to bed after travelling from the game. ?

Seeing as my post is being ignored ill say it again. The attack happened 5 days after the final , on teh 30th may. Not everyone stays up drinking till 8 o'clock in the morning every night of a holiday.

Big Nelly wrote:

Well they could have explained why he was in bed and didnt wake up with his mates in the room drinking with lights on etc. It would suggest he was drunk, so if he was drunk then where was he drinking? thats just one point..

If he was asleep at the tiem of the attack, where or how much he drank is irrelevant.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Big Nelly wrote:

Wonder if I stuck YNWA or something like that in my sig would this change. Ok to agree with you of course he is innocent. He went straight to bed after travelling from the game. The bad person in Bulgaria jumped onto that rock and then made out it was Liverpool fans who of course would never do anything like that. It was all the bad people in Bulgaria. Horrible they are. Taking advantage of a good little boy who was never in trouble before in his life. A liverpool fan would never hurt a soul or attack an ambulance outside of a ground with a player inside it with a broken leg.
Happy now?

I know this is a challenge but just for a second think about what you are saying please. Nobody has disputed that it was a liverpool fan and in fact a liverpool fan has owned up to it. Just not the one that was imprisoned for it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ?? This is not about whether a liverpool fan did this, it was a liverpool fan and that's accepted the fact that it was not that fan is what you started to debate, stating that the story that Shileds and four others told, repeatedly without deviating, despite being told that if he accepted a lesser charge he would go free, was "certainly" made up. Then when you were shown up to have no idea what you were talking about (as usual really) you changed tack and said Ooh the english government banged up the Guildford 4.

Now despite you addressing absolutely none of the points made to rebut your rubbish and your complete lack of any kind of sense on this issue I for one am willing to quit pillorying you on this should you just accept that yes it was a liverpool fan that committed this foul and heinous offence and that there were liverpool fans involved in the attack but that the conviction made was unsafe. That is all, how's about it Nelly, a chance to escape this debacle of yours with some dignity.

county

didnt see the program so i can only comment on the posts in this thread

i seeing a lot of, if your a pool fan you support the bloke and if your not he is as guity as charged.

just one question to big nelly,if you were up before the courts lets say the same charge as the liverpool fan,where would you feel you`d get a fairer trail,the UK or bulgaria?

Big Nelly

p.pete wrote:

Also, later on where you say Michael Shields was "maybe" a witness to the murder - do I need to have seen the programme to comment on that? I'm pretty sure that wasn't part of the programme so if you've any source which led you to that possibility, please share...

Yes maybe, I dont know and I am pretty certain you havent a clue either. You have just read the Liverpool forums etc who of course will take a biased view. Where is your witness that can tell you 100% for sure he was in the bed and no where near the bar? the police have 4 witnesses saying he was and thats all the matters to be honest.

Big Nelly

county wrote:

just one question to big nelly,if you were up before the courts lets say the same charge as the liverpool fan,where would you feel you`d get a fairer trail,the UK or bulgaria?

Was in Bulgaria this year skiing, lovely people. I don't think I would get myself into a situation where I would be up on charges like this. Its strange that this was the first time this guy left the UK and was picked out from a large number of supporters who where staying in the area.

Again I dont know if he did this or not, but all these great witnesses etc are useless coming onto the TV now when the guy is already in jail. Why didnt they stand up when it counted? hiding your face on a TV camera saying you know its not him is useless to be honest

Thanx 4 The Fish

Big Nelly wrote:

Yes maybe, I dont know and I am pretty certain you havent a clue either. You have just read the Liverpool forums etc who of course will take a biased view. Where is your witness that can tell you 100% for sure he was in the bed and no where near the bar? the police have 4 witnesses saying he was and thats all the matters to be honest.

Did you watch the show, they have four people, four of them eye witnesses to the event. One identified somebody else. Two identified him for throwing the punch and one for dropping the rock. The victim of the attack said that Shileds threw the punch then close to trial date said that he dropped the rock. Their stories changed from day to day and that was despite them all being allowed to chat about it. The four people who were with shields all maintained the same story throughout.

There are none so blind as those who won't see.

TheMonster

examining the confession, made on condition that Mr Sankey would not have to stand trial himself

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.

FRom the telegrpah article - in fairness anyone could make this confession and one of his associates actually admitted firstly that Shields was there.