Michael Shields given a Royal pardon [warning posts 24 / 59 / 162]

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

Straw could have lost his job over this, Proof of Public Pressure.

http://sofiaecho.com/2009/08/24/774057_michael-shields-father-may-stand-against-jack-straw-at-election

:rolleyes::P:confused::eek::cool::pac:

there isn't enough smilies in the world tbh

you think the british government released a man from prison who they know is guilty of attempted murder because a couple of local tabloids & red top tabloid papers reported that his dad MIGHT run for election, a man with no political background or experience, against the british secretary of state for justice, and you think you think thats why he released him?!

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

:rolleyes::P:confused::eek::cool::pac:

there isn't enough smilies in the world tbh

you think the british government released a man from prison who they know is guilty of attempted murder because a couple of local tabloids & red top tabloid papers reported that his dad MIGHT run for election, a man with no political background or experience, against the british secretary of state for justice, and you think you think thats why he released him?!

Why is that so astonishing to you?

It's the people who elected Straw, if Sheilds father ran against him in a looming general election it's not beyond the realms of possiblity that there is enough Shields supporters out there to oust Straw.

No?

zAbbo

Straw didn't lose his job over Iraq, expense claims, Lockerbie bomber, dodgy donations or the jail buggings...

Clutching at straws...

elshambo

People posting on a guy getting a pardon from his goverment in a different country just because he supports a football team they dont like really need to grow up!

Find a mirror, take a look, change your life, or at very least stay away from me in public

Once more onto the ignore list dear friends, once more onto the ignore list

Mitch Connor

redzerdrog wrote: »

fair play mr alan for answering the ********* questions without losing the head.

michael shields is innocent, the man that commited the crime has come out and said he done it.

michael shields has passed a lie detector text with flying colours

the poor man has lost 4 years of his life that he will never get back and to me it doesnt matter who the **** he supports no innocent person should have to suffer what he did

And has that person been convicted of the crime? Has he even been arrested for it?

I remember reading about someone saying that they did it, but not officially stepping forward to prove Shields' innocence.

Hell, I could say I did it as long as I knew I would never be brought to court over it - doesn't make a bit of difference. How do you know the person who said they did it, isn't just saying it to get Shields off?

Mr Alan

Sankey confessed to doing it, then retracted his confession when they looked for him to return to Bulgaria & said that it could have been another fight he was involved in on the same night.

He also has a history of violent offences.

LuckyLloyd

If you want, over the next week you will be able to find a plethora of international journalists, politicians and public figures who laud the UK Government for this decision. You will also be able to find just as many commentators who chastise them for it.

You are all speculating on an extremely complex matter, that has produced intense disagreement at the highest and most qualified levels of decision making. You are all way out of your depth on this.

Now:

If you are intent on disregarding your lack of knowledge on the case and resolved to comment on it, knock yourself out. Note that all comments regarding the matter on this forum must go here. And take care to address other posters who disagree with you with a modicum of courtesy and respect or we will ban and infract you. Go nuts.

:rolleyes:

Harpy

Mr Alan wrote: »

Sankey confessed to doing it, then retracted his confession when they looked for him to return to Bulgaria & said that it could have been another fight he was involved in on the same night.

He also has a history of violent offences.

yeah i remember reading that, that some guy had confessed but basically refused to return to bulgaria to clear shields name..
im really happy for him that he's out reading through the stuff about the case over the last few years, well done to his family and friends for never giving up and fighting for him..

event

i cant really understand why this is in the soccer forum tbh, is he a football player?

jaykay74

Good political move. Its all upside with little or no downside (bar a few peeved bulgarians).

SWAR

event wrote: »

i cant really understand why this is in the soccer forum tbh, is he a football player?

In a way it's a football related incident and probably within a forum where it has most interest...hence the number of comments on this thread already.

event

SWAR wrote: »

In a way it's a football related incident and probably within a forum where it has most interest...hence the number of comments on this thread already.

the only reason it has a lot of interest is that it has become another man u vs liverpool thread, of which another isnt really needed.

the only football link is that he was a liverpool fan

LuckyLloyd

event wrote: »

i cant really understand why this is in the soccer forum tbh, is he a football player?

There is a high interest level here on the matter, so discussion will be allowed within this specific thread. I would agree that it has precious little to do with football and sport.

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

Sankey confessed to doing it, then retracted his confession when they looked for him to return to Bulgaria & said that it could have been another fight he was involved in on the same night.

He also has a history of violent offences.

So, the point made earlier about someone confessing to the crime is moot, because it was retracted and never proven.

SWAR

event wrote: »

the only reason it has a lot of interest is that it has become another man u vs liverpool thread, of which another isnt really needed.

the only football link is that he was a liverpool fan

You're right, definately no need for another man u v liverpool type thread but I wouldn't agree that that is the only reason it has a lot of interest...among the Liverpool fans anyway.

The news was originally posted within the Liverpool thread FWIW (obv one of the mods felt it needed its own thread).

Theresalwaysone

Boggles wrote: »

Why is that so astonishing to you?

It's the people who elected Straw, if Sheilds father ran against him in a looming general election it's not beyond the realms of possiblity that there is enough Shields supporters out there to oust Straw.

No?

Weak Boggles. Weak.

I can only side with Alan on this one, you seem to be dragging this matter into a petty United v Liverpool rivalrly which is not needed and reflects so poorly on you.

Boggles

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Weak Boggles. Weak.

I can only side with Alan on this one, you seem to be dragging this matter into a petty United v Liverpool rivalrly which is not needed and reflects so poorly on you.

Have you anything to add, instead of having a go at me?

:rolleyes:

As has been already said, it is a very murky case, which IMO opinoin should not be celebrated.

Xavi6

SWAR wrote: »

(obv one of the mods felt it needed its own thread).

It wasn't just one, it was all.

The topic was deemed to be derailing the main Liverpool football thread and, despite not being a direct football topic, it is still linked to the game and has a lot of interest for fans and users of this forum.

We are merely giving people a platform for discussion without taking away from the actual football side of things.

Theresalwaysone

Boggles wrote: »

Have you anything to add, instead of having a go at me?

:rolleyes:

As has been already said, it is a very murky case, which IMO opinoin should not be celebrated.

Well no, I dont because I have no idea about the circumstances or complexities of this case. I agree it seems murky on the outside but your arguments are tenous and inflammatory and I dont believe you have anything of substance to add either in light of that.

Surely you cant believe that he was given a pardon because Straw was worried about Shields father running for election?

event

fair enough, i can see where ye were coming from, if it was going to derail a thread because of it and its not like you can just dump it in AH

Boggles

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Well no, I dont because I have no idea about the circumstances or complexities of this case.

How can you whole heartly argee that he is innocent if you have no idea of the case?

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

I agree it seems murky on the outside but your arguments are tenous and inflammatory and I dont believe you have anything of substance to add either in light of that.

Surely you cant believe that he was given a pardon because Straw was worried about Shields father running for election?

Straw is the same fella who categorically denied Roonie Biggs parole stating he was still a danger to society all though he couldn't walk or eat.

The public wanted Biggs released, what happened???

People on here having a go at the murky underside of the Bulgarian judicial system while at the same time commending Britain and Straw for upholding justice is hilarious considering Britain are guilty of the worst miscarriages of justice in the modern era.

SWAR

Xavi6 wrote: »

It wasn't just one, it was all.

The topic was deemed to be derailing the main Liverpool football thread and, despite not being a direct football topic, it is still linked to the game and has a lot of interest for fans and users of this forum.

We are merely giving people a platform for discussion without taking away from the actual football side of things.

Not sure why you felt the need to quote part of my post when I was merely trying to say pretty much what you said yourself (in the remainder of my original post)...and also I wasn't arguing the fact that it was given it's own thread, merely stated how it came about...if it was a joint decision by all the mods then great :rolleyes:

Theresalwaysone

Boggles wrote: »

How can you whole heartly argee that he is innocent if you have no idea of the case?



Straw is the same fella who categorically denied Roonie Biggs parole stating he was still a danger to society all though he couldn't walk or eat.

The public wanted Biggs released, what happened???

People on here having a go at the murky underside of the Bulgarian judicial system while at the same time commending Britain and Straw for upholding justice is hilarious considering Britain are guilty of the worst miscarriages of justice in the modern era.

Where did I say he I believed he is innocent. I dont know enough about it to have a cast iron opinion.

I do see it his way though:

Someone came forward and admitting to the crime. Bulgaria didnt ask for him to be extradited and couldnt convict him anyway if they did without admitting they got it wrong with Shields.

So they sent him home, and told the Britsh Govt that he was their problem now and to do with him what they will. This imo looks like they are washing their hands of the whole sad affair. The Brits then looked over the evidence aided by the knowledge of a 3rd pary confession and decided Shields was innocent and so pardoned him.

The Brits are highly unlikely to pardon him if he was in fact guilty given the whole "English Yobs" belief around the world, and besides that, if they pardoned a guilty man there would be a massive **** storm resulting.

As it stands though, Bulgaria just have to take it and in all liklihood Shields was innocent.

Mitch Connor

I thought Bulgaria did ask for the guy who confessed to be brought to Bulgaria so they could question/charge him, but he refused to travel to Bulgaria to do so, and then retracted his statement saying it was probably a different fight he had been in.

Theresalwaysone

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I thought Bulgaria did ask for the guy who confessed to be brought to Bulgaria so they could question/charge him, but he refused to travel to Bulgaria to do so, and then retracted his statement saying it was probably a different fight he had been in.

I could be wrong, like I said, limited knowledge of the case. Afaik they didnt actually serve an extradition warrant though.

To ask for him to come for questioning and actually asking for him to be extradited and charged are different afaik, first one likely to hve been asked to save face knowing they got it wrong with Shields. It looks very like they are just done with the whole thing now anyway. They can't do anything about the pardon.

Boggles

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Where did I say he I believed he is innocent. I dont know enough about it to have a cast iron opinion.

You said you sided with Mr.Alan which I presumed ment you had the same opinion of him.

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

I do see it his way though:

Someone came forward and admitting to the crime. Bulgaria didnt ask for him to be extradited and couldnt convict him anyway if they did without admitting they got it wrong with Shields.

The Bulgarian police did want to speak with him, they got a transcript of his "confession" which they said had so many inconsistencies that he couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. He later withdrew it when he heard the Bulgarians wanted to speak to him.

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

The Brits are highly unlikely to pardon him if he was in fact guilty given the whole "English Yobs" belief around the world, and besides that, if they pardoned a guilty man there would be a massive **** storm resulting.

As it stands though, Bulgaria just have to take it and in all liklihood Shields was innocent.

Look at it this way.

The Brits have gladly locked up innocent people to appease the masses, you think it is beyond the realms of possibilty that they would let a guilty man go free to appease the same people?

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

they got a transcript of his "confession" which they said had so many inconsistencies that he couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

link please.

i've heard of one inconsistancy, which was he refered to the stone as a paving slab, when it was actual a stone of irregular shape.

wats the rest?

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

you think it is beyond the realms of possibilty that they would let a guilty man go free to appease the same people?

why would the british public want a man guilty of attempted murder to be set free?

how come the british public don't want every british citizen convicted of a serious crime overseas to be pardoned?

i'm really failing to follow your logic here.

Theresalwaysone

Boggles wrote: »

The Bulgarian police did want to speak with him, they got a transcript of his "confession" which they said had so many inconsistencies that he couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. He later withdrew it when he heard the Bulgarians wanted to speak to him.

Yeah but did they ever serve an extradition warrant? The brits couldnt arrest him unless they were asked too and as they didnt, you can assume they werent asked to arrest him.

Its also unlikely that his withdrawal of his confession would matter if the Bulgaria police actually wanted to speak to him. I mean what did he expect to happen? If he confessed to being in a fight on that night near to where the incident is alleged to have happened he would be considered a suspect and so if was truly wanted for questioning would be over there for questioning.

It looks like the bulgarians dont want to admit they got it wrong, as it would be pretty embarassing and probably open them up to cases against them.

Boggles wrote: »

Look at it this way.

The Brits have gladly locked up innocent people to appease the masses, you think it is beyond the realms of possibilty that they would let a guilty man go free to appease the same people?

But thats all irrelevant, take this case on its merits and it sure looks like the guy was innocent not only because he was pardoned but because bulgaria dont seem to care about it anymore.

RasTa

What evidence did he get convicted on apart from being picked out a line-up?

Also how did he manage to get singled out as I'm presuming there was a lot of brits around that night celebrating?

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

link please.

i've heard of one inconsistancy, which was he refered to the stone as a paving slab, when it was actual a stone of irregular shape.

wats the rest?

The main inconsistancy is not the shape of the stone, but the fact that the guy who was injured had his skull caved in by a stone object dropped on his head with so such force that it bounced according to a dozen eye witness.

Not Sankeys version of events where he said he lofted a brick at 3 individuals and ran away.

Boggles

Heres an article the times ran on it some time back.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4197098/Innocent-gentle-giant-Or-remorseless-thug-guilty-of-attempted-murder.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."


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."

Fuhrer

Mr Alan wrote: »

Sankey confessed to doing it, then retracted his confession when they looked for him to return to Bulgaria & said that it could have been another fight he was involved in on the same night.

He also has a history of violent offences.

His confession didnt match any version of the events discovered by the investigation and he couldnt identify the weapon either, it had more to do with it involving him having to go back to Bulgaria.


Plus Sheilds was identified by the victim as the attacker.

PHB

Bulgaria is an EU Member State. If the UK courts don't respect their decisions, the entire Justice framework for the EU is going to break down. No extradition requests for UK citizens arrested in Bulgaria will be accepted by the majority of judges now in Bulgarian courts. Dangerous policy precedent.

Whether he is guilty or not, I don't know. But various facts of the incident seems to suggest he is, particularly the eye witness account. If the UK courts are going to ignore this, we'll see some very interesting situations emerging.

Boggles

RasTa wrote: »

What evidence did he get convicted on apart from being picked out a line-up?

9 eye witness accounts appartently, there isn't much more evidence required.

RasTa wrote: »

Also how did he manage to get singled out as I'm presuming there was a lot of brits around that night celebrating?

Some English lad that was there knew what hotel they were staying at and directed the police towards it.

Headshot

Boggles wrote: »

9 eye witness accounts appartently, there isn't much more evidence required.



Some English lad that was there knew what hotel they were staying at and directed the police towards it.

:eek:

and he got off

that's a joke

Boggles

Headshot wrote: »

:eek:

and he got off

that's a joke

He didn't get off. He was convicted of attempted murder.

He got a royal pardon by the British Government. Does not overturn the conviction in Bulgaria, he is still on record as being an attempted murderer.

Mr Alan

wat about the eye witness accounts that he was in his hotel at the time of the attack?

we'll ignore them i guess :rolleyes:

The eyewitness accounts are easily explained by the fact that he was asked to change into similar clothes that the attacker was wearing & was kept handcuffed to a radiator in the police reception as the witness' arrived oh & he appeared in a line up with 3 dark bulgarians.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

wat about the eye witness accounts that he was in his hotel at the time of the attack?

we'll ignore them i guess :rolleyes:

You mean his friends?

Who all managed to just "stumble" into his room for one reason or another???

Fuhrer

Mr Alan wrote: »

wat about the eye witness accounts that he was in his hotel at the time of the attack?

we'll ignore them i guess :rolleyes:

How can there be an eye witness account of him asleep in his hotel room?


Was it that kind of hotel? You know, the naughty one?

Mr Alan

familiarise yourself with the case & then come back to me.

5starpool

This article was published in the Mirror. I have no link for it as it was taken from IrishKop

Britain loves nothing better than proving its legal system is the best in the world, especially when a foreign national is involved.

It’s why a £2million inquest has just opened into the death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes who was killed by London police in July 2005.

Which is fine by me. But why can’t we devote the same resources to finding justice for our own? Four days after de Menezes was killed, Michael Shields was the victim of an equally tragic case of mistaken identity, and was sentenced to 15 years jail for attacking a Bulgarian waiter.

Despite legal experts, MPs, clergymen, journalists and ex-detectives saying the conviction is appallingly flawed, new witnesses coming forward to swear he was in bed at the time and Bulgaria repatriating him and saying we’re free to pardon him, Shields remains behind bars.

These are the facts. A few nights after Liverpool’s Champions League win in Istanbul a waiter was attacked in Varna and police went to a nearby hotel to arrest the culprit. He wasn’t there, so they tried the adjacent room where 18-year-old Shields was sleeping.

They made him put on a white T-shirt (same colour as the attacker’s) and drove him to the crime scene where witnesses viewed him.

At the police station he was handcuffed to a radiator for 16 hours, while witnesses walked past to an ID parade. A parade made up of Shields and three swarthy Bulgarians.

There was no DNA or forensic proof, four witnesses swore he was asleep, the hotel concierge said he saw Shields go to his room, and another man, Graham Sankey, signed a confession (which his solicitors made him retract).

ITV’s Tonight show employed a retired senior UK detective to re-examine the case who said he was “appalled” at the conviction. Fair Trials Abroad called it a blatant miscarriage of justice.

Advertisement - article continues below »

Shields has sailed through a lie-detector test, Bulgaria has told the Foreign Office his release is a matter for the British and its president has hinted he would be happy if he was pardoned. Because his trial was an embarrassment to a legal system which was already labelled one of the worst on earth.

Yet 40 months after Shields was dragged from his bed and locked up for simply being, like de Menezes in the wrong place at the wrong time, British justice hesitates.

Justice Minister Jack Straw (despite telling the family there is powerful evidence to support Michael’s innocence) says he can’t do anything until Bulgaria puts it in writing that he is innocent.

He worries what the rest of the world will think if our justice system doesn’t play by the book.

Which is why, as the de Menezes family get yet another inquiry, the Shields have to seek a Judicial Review to grant a pardon on the grounds that both countries “have the power to pardon a repatriated prisoner under their laws”.

Would Shields still be in jail in France or Italy? Or would they have released him and awaited any consequences? The latter, of course.

But this is Britain, where it’s more important to show the world that we do everything by the book. Especially for others.

By all means let’s give the de Menezes family justice.

But isn’t it equally important to ensure we get justice for a British citizen like Shields who has been criminally abused by foreign courts?

Boggles

Martin Georgiev the Actual victim has no doubt Shields was the one who attacked him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4732829.stm

A Bulgarian barman who suffered a fractured skull in a street melee has said the court jailed the right man. Michael Shields, 18, was jailed for 15 years on Tuesday for the attempted murder of Martin Georgiev but has protested his innocence.
However Mr Georgiev said: "I remember very clearly his face."
Support for Mr Shields came from Graham Sankey, 20, from Anfield, Liverpool, who signed a statement on Thursday admitting he carried out the assault.



Mr Georgiev, who is married with two young children, said: "I am not revengeful but the man who has done it he must bear the consequences.
"I feel handicapped for my family... I can't take care of them."
Mr Georgiev said he is unable to do a lot of things others take for granted such as go outside in the heat and carry heavy objects.



He said he faces months of treatment and may never fully recover.
Asked by Sky News if Michael Shields was his attacker he said, "yes."
Paving slab
Shields, who said he was in bed when a paving slab was dropped on Mr Georgiev's head, was holidaying in the Black Sea resort of Varna after travelling to Turkey to watch Liverpool in the European Champions League Final.



His father, Michael Shields snr, and sister Melissa, flew to Bulgaria from their home in Liverpool on Thursday.
A spokeswoman for his Bulgarian solicitors said an application for bail is due on Monday.



They hope the signed confession could help free Shields, who has always denied the attack.
In the confession, electrician Mr Sankey said he threw a brick at a group of people when he saw a fight. He claimed he did not realise at the time Mr Georgiev was injured.



A vigil for Mr Shields was due to be held in Liverpool city centre on Sunday evening.

Pedro K

Mr Alan wrote: »

No idea.

Why would the British Government pardon him if they felt all the evidence (some of which was not allowed at his initial trial) did not prove beyond any doubt he was innocent of any crime?

Guildford 4, Bimingham 6.

Without trying to drag this conversation down, the british government and judicial system have done worse things.

He shouldn't have been released. The british have now just crapped all over the Bulgarian Justice system.

The Muppet

Boggles wrote: »

Martin Georgiev the Actual victim has no doubt Shields was the one who attacked him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4732829.stm

That's good enough for me, I think most people would remember the face of somone about to pulverise them with a rock. I couldn't give a toss that this lad has been pardoned but by some of the posts here you would think he had had his conviction overtuned, that is not tha case.

Leaving all club loyalties aside, a person suffered a brutal attack and horrific injuries. The man convicted in a court of law was Mr Shields. His conviction was found to be safe by europeean courts so TBH a "Royal Pardon" means very little in regard to his innocense and is nothing worth celebrating IMO.

Guy:Incognito

The Muppet wrote: »

That's good enough for me, I think most people would remember the face of somone about to pulverise them with a rock. I couldn't give a toss that this lad has been pardoned but by some of the posts here you would think he had had his conviction overtuned, that is not tha case.

Leaving all club loyalties aside, a person suffered a brutal attack and horrific injuries. The man convicted in a court of law was Mr Shields. His conviction was found to be safe by europeean courts so TBH a "Royal Pardon" means very little in regard to his innocense and is nothing worth celebrating IMO.

Theres no chance a guy that was beaten to the ground and had a large stone dropped on his head could be mistaken?


Have you never been certain of somethign that later turned out to be worng? I now I have

mayordenis

Stekelly wrote: »

Theres no chance a guy that was beaten to the ground and had a large stone dropped on his head could be mistaken?


Have you never been certain of somethign that later turned out to be worng? I now I have

Common ffs nobody could ever be wrong, especially after massive trauma.

jesus_thats_gre

Why do ye lot even care?

Pedro K

Boggles wrote: »

Heres an article the times ran on it some time back.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4197098/Innocent-gentle-giant-Or-remorseless-thug-guilty-of-attempted-murder.html

Mr Alan wrote: »

wat about the eye witness accounts that he was in his hotel at the time of the attack?

we'll ignore them i guess :rolleyes:

The eyewitness accounts are easily explained by the fact that he was asked to change into similar clothes that the attacker was wearing & was kept handcuffed to a radiator in the police reception as the witness' arrived oh & he appeared in a line up with 3 dark bulgarians.

Mr Alan, If you read the article that Boggles posted you will see part of it states,

"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."

Mr Dunne and Mr Unsworth were apparently the friends with whom Michael was staying with.
And they were apparently who he was put in the lineup with. Not three dark Bulgarians. And they were all asked to don similar shirts as the one worn by the perpetrator of the attack.

mike65

I'm not sure why this is even being given space here to be honest. It has fcuk all to do with football and is merely being used by various parties to either show an allegiance that is not required by anyone here or to provoke.