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

Guy:Incognito

Pedro K wrote: »

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.

That all contradicts the stuff in the ITV documentary. Doesnt prove either is right or wrong.

ANTIFA!

Yeah why do we need to know about this? Best left on Irishkop.... :rolleyes:

The Muppet

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

And the nine independant eye witnesses were wrong too? How is their testimony squared away in this mis carriage of justice?

Jesus lads, take your football allegiences away and have a rethink. only a small number of people really know if Sheilds was guilty or not but those that were presented with the evidence in a court of law said he was and their ruling was upheld in europe. A Royal Pardon doesn't provide new evidence or change the verdict.

There are scumbags attached to all clubs , I have no intention of being an apologist for any of them. IMO they deserve whatever punishment they get when convicted. That's all I'm saying on the matter ,

Guy:Incognito

The Muppet wrote: »

And the nine independant eye witnesses were wrong too? How is their testimony squared away in this mis carriage of justice?

Jesus lads, take your football allegiences away and have a rethink. only a small number of people really know if Sheilds was guilty or not but those that were presented with the evidence in a court of law said he was and their ruling was upheld in europe. A Royal Pardon doesn't provide new evidence or change the verdict.

There are scumbags attached to all clubs , I have no intention of being an apologist for any of them. IMO they deserve whatever punishment they get when convicted. That's all I'm saying on the matter ,

This was conveniently ignored too.

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.

The Muppet

Stekelly wrote: »

This was conveniently ignored too.

Not ignored, just not credible.

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.

mayordenis

a bunch of lads on a holiday it's entirely credible that all rooms are somewhat communal and people wander in and out.

cournioni

What more would you expect from the government in the UK at the moment? Releasing a terrorist that is responsible for one of the biggest terrorist atrocities in Britain and now releasing Shields to win a few votes in Merseyside.

I don't see any evidence to say that he was innocent, and all of the witnesses have identified him as the culprit. I don't care what anybody says, if nine people identify you as the culprit, you are the culprit. It must have been some coincidence if all of the witnesses guessed it was Shields.

Once again, a cheeky chappy lovely harmless scouser gets away with it, just like Gerrard. Ridiculous.

abouttobebanned

Very emotional issue and you can completely understand Liverpool fans getting behind one of their own.

However, I really don't like these scenarios...both sides could easily make documentaries showing theories of innocence or guilt that would definitely sway some opinion on this thread. Words and phrases like "no smoke without fire" would be banded about and we still wouldn't really be any wiser, because only 2 people really know for sure, and of those people is dead now.

I remember watching "the hurricane" and not really being able to enjoy it cause i watched a documentary about Rubin Carter that claimed he was guilty as sin.

All I do know is that Michael should stay out of the public limelight and definitely not try and make money out of this situation because the Pool fans could very well turn on him.

Xavi6

ANTIFA! wrote: »

Yeah why do we need to know about this? Best left on Irishkop.... :rolleyes:

If you had bothered to read the thread you would clearly see the reasons why the thread is here and if you don't like it then you know where Help Desk is, or even better - just don't click into the thread. That goes for anyone else questioning moderation on thread.

Helix

Des wrote: »

It didn't happen in Istanbul.

If a United fan allegedly attempted to murder someone in, say, Kiev on the night when United won the CL in Moscow, I'd say Liverpool fans would be taking much the same delight/disgust as United fans are currently showing towards Shields.

It's the natural way of the world.

i dont see for one second why the football club anyone supports should come into this

blindly believing some bloke is innocent based on the football club he supports is absolutely insane

mayordenis

Helix wrote: »

i dont see for one second why the football club anyone supports should come into this

blindly believing some bloke is innocent based on the football club he supports is absolutely insane

completely agree and likewise believing he's guilty.

Boggles

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

Once again, a cheeky chappy lovely harmless scouser gets away with it, just like Gerrard. Ridiculous.

...

Steven Gerrard says the news of Michael Shields’ release from prison after four years yesterday was what inspired him to score twice in England’s 5-1 victory over Croatia at Wembley last night.

Liverpool fan Shields was given a royal pardon after originally being sentenced for ten years in a Bulgarian prison for an attack in the build-up to the European Cup Final 2005.
Shields always protested his innocence and Gerrard says the news of the 22-year-old’s release gave him further inspiration to achieve with England last night.
“It’s fantastic news both for Michael and his family,” said the Liverpool skipper.

“I’m really pleased for all of them. It was a good day for me, scoring two goals and qualifying for the World Cup having switched on the television earlier in the day and seeing the news about Michael. It gave me a real boost.

“It’s certainly one of the most satisfying nights I’ve had playing for England. We’ve had some good nights under Sven – particularly in Germany – and I’ve scored goals in the European Championships and the World Cup finals but this was very good.”

Mr Alan

As far as i'm aware, it was also hotel staff who confirmed he was in his room. As well as his friends.

a few Utd fans being unhappy about this is not unexpected. Similiar as to when Gerrard should have been sent to prison for a few slaps in a bar fight :rolleyes:

The British judicial system, thankfully, agrees with the assertion he is innocent.

This argument would have got to me a lot more if he was still in prison for a crime he didn't commit. With him now being recognised as innocent, its only a mild irritation.

Nalz

Is this still being discussed? Think its ran its course.

Mr Alan wrote: »

a few Utd fans being unhappy about this is not unexpected

Fixed that for you

Mr Alan

apologies Trilla.

kida

Mr Alan wrote: »

With him now being recognised as innocent, its only a mild irritation.

Not by the Bulgarian Authorities or the EU, stop making up stuff.

Mr Alan

actually tis you who is making stuff up my good man.

The EU never looked into verdict of the case, simply into the trial & investigation procedures due to the fishy way in which they were carried out. they found that they were ok, but there is no smoke without fire etc, and with the political climate at the time (looking for/recent membership to the EU) & the high level of media attention on the case, i'm sure the bulgarians did everything in their power to sweep the mess they'd made under the carpet.

And since Michael was sent back to England the conviction was passed to the British justice system with the authority on the matter passed from Bulgaria to England, with Bulgaria on numerous time saying the power to over-rule the conviction was with the british-who chose to do this obviously because they looked into everything to do with the case (something the initial trial did not do) and found that he was innocent.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

actually tis you who is making stuff up my good man.

The EU never looked into verdict of the case, simply into the trial & investigation procedures due to the fishy way in which they were carried out. they found that they were ok, but there is no smoke without fire etc, and with the political climate at the time (looking for/recent membership to the EU) & the high level of media attention on the case, i'm sure the bulgarians did everything in their power to sweep the mess they'd made under the carpet.

It was the European court of Human Rights and they didn't just find the investigation, trial and verdict to be "okay". They found it to be totally sound.

Amazing you point out the murky side of the Bulgarian justice system having no knowledge of it, but Champion the British system who are up there as one of the most corrupt organisations in modern times.

Numerous examples already citied on the thread, but you still bleat away that if the "Brits say he did nothing, he must have done nothing" - It's pathetic Alan.

Mr Alan

in fairness Boggles, i championed his innocence long before the British government

have you ever been to Bulgaria, place is run by the mafia, police are virtually med-evil the place is so corrupt in areas.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

have you ever been to Bulgaria, place is run by the mafia, police are virtually med-evil the place is so corrupt in areas.

Several times, found it friendly and pleasant, although the food was shíté.

Mr Alan

You were lucky so (although i agree about the food), i'd imagine one thing we'll all agree on is that crowds associated with football are dealt with somewhat differently.

Do you honestly think there is zero % chance it was an unfair trial the first time round, and that he is in actual fact innocent?

kida

Mr Alan wrote: »

You were lucky so (although i agree about the food), i'd imagine one thing we'll all agree on is that crowds associated with football are dealt with somewhat differently.

Do you honestly think there is zero % chance it was an unfair trial the first time round, and that he is in actual fact innocent?

I trust an independent authority, EU to fairly look into it

Mr Alan

1: Do you trust a corrupt justice system to be frank & forthcoming with all information in regards to the trial & investigation?

2: Do you think the EU have never made a mistake?! :eek:

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

1: Do you trust a corrupt justice system to be frank & forthcoming with all information in regards to the trial & investigation?

2: Do you think the EU have never made a mistake?! :eek:

Do you think it is completely impossible for Shields to be guilty of the crime he was found guilty of?

You seem to think it incomprehensible that anyone could not think he is innocent, while (seemingly) taking the position that he can't be anything other than completely innocent.

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

a few Utd fans being unhappy about this is not unexpected. Similiar as to when Gerrard should have been sent to prison for a few slaps in a bar fight :rolleyes:

Not unexpected, because some of us aren't deluded into thinking that one of our own is innocent after being proven guilty by a foreign judicial system. For example there were few United fans that argued that the three lads that were sent to prison in Rome a few years back after some scuffles were innocent, we know we have an element in the United support that causes trouble at away games. We accept that.

Liverpool supporters on the other had always seem to stick the innocent title onto anything involving their supporters. One comes to mind where there was a distinct lack of an apology for the incident, but that is a whole other subject that has been argued about time and time again.

Shields was identified by a number of eye witnesses and the victim himself as the culprit who dropped the slab on a defenseless mans head. That is proof enough for me. Not some worthless documentry that clearly painted Shields as a saint who should be up for a nobel peace prize. I found that documentry quite sickening to be honest and did not show one iota of respect for the injured man.

And as for the UK justice system... I think it has shown its true colours this year from its dealings with the Lockerby bomber to the Gerrard assault case. Over the years it hasn't been exactly been a squeaky clean justice system either with how it dealt with the Guildford four and the Maguire seven either. So please, spare us the bull**** about other justice systems being corrupt and not worthy of trying anybody from the "civilised world"

Xavi6

I wonder if Shields were a Bolton fan would this level of 'debate' be going on. Just a thought.

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

1: Do you trust a corrupt justice system to be frank & forthcoming with all information in regards to the trial & investigation?

You appear to trust one when it suits. One that has also just released (for political reasons) a mass murderer guilty of killing 207 people .

cournioni

Xavi6 wrote: »

I wonder if Shields were a Bolton fan would this level of 'debate' be going on. Just a thought.

Not likely, I have never seen the Bolton fans as a set playing the innocent card as often as the Liverpool fans. There are next to no Bolton fans on the board to start a debate anyway. I know a number of Man City fans that echo what I've said in my last post also. So this isn't just a United vs Liverpool debate.

Mr Alan

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

Liverpool supporters on the other had always seem to stick the innocent title onto anything involving their supporters.

its this sort of delusion that is infuriating.

It's not up for debate that it was a Liverpool fan who commited the crime. It was. Without doubt.

Its the attitude "oh any aul Liverpool fan will do" that seems to be eminating from Utd fans which is annoying.

Shields was identified by a number of eye witnesses and the victim himself as the culprit who dropped the slab on a defenseless mans head. That is proof enough for me. Not some worthless documentry that clearly painted Shields as a saint who should be up for a nobel peace prize. I found that documentry quite sickening to be honest and did not show one iota of respect for the injured man.

He was also identified by numerous people incl the staff at the hotel as being in his room at the time of the attack. Why do you keep ignoring this?

The eyewitness account that says he is guilty is proof enough for you.

The one that says he is innocent, is not.

Very strange.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Do you think it is completely impossible for Shields to be guilty of the crime he was found guilty of?

You seem to think it incomprehensible that anyone could not think he is innocent, while (seemingly) taking the position that he can't be anything other than completely innocent.

It is a possibility that he has fooled everyone & that he guilty, of course thats a possibility.

But imo its far more likely that he is innocent, and thankfully, doubt is not something that can be afforded when you are talking about such a serious criminal charge & surely the most biased of Utd fans can admit there is serious doubt as to his guilt.

Nalz

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

So this isn't just a United vs Liverpool debate.

Seriously, what kind of debate is this?

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

It is a possibility that he has fooled everyone & that he guilty, of course thats a possibility.

But imo its far more likely that he is innocent, and thankfully, doubt is not something that can be afforded when you are talking about such a serious criminal charge & surely the most biased of Utd fans can admit there is serious doubt as to his guilt.

Firstly, he would not have fooled everyone if he is in fact guilty - the eye witnesses, the victim and the Bulgarian legal system think he is guilty for a start.

There is doubt, yes, and while that is the case (and it is beyond reasonable doubt) he should be free.

However, your posts in this thread have increasingly implied that anyone thinking he is guilty can only be crazy, a corrupt Bulgarian Mafioso or a biased United fan.

You take the eye witness accounts that he was in his hotel room as proof of his innocence, ignoring the eye witness accounts fingering him as guilty, and then you take a high and mighty tone with those who are basically doing the same thing, but in the opposite direction.

There is doubt to his guilt. there was doubt OJ was the killer too, or that MJ may have acted improperly with kids. Being doubt over your guilt or an inability to prove to everyone that someone is guilty, doesn't actually mean they are innocent.

You are taking one groups word for it, others are taking another groups word for it.

Mr Alan

Mitch Connor wrote: »

However, your posts in this thread have increasingly implied that anyone thinking he is guilty can only be crazy or a biased United fan.

anyone who thinks he should still be in prison is crazy, or else they just fundamentally disagree with how justice systems are meant to work all around the world.

its also worth pointing out, every objection to his release i have seen in this forum has come from Utd fans.

Nalz

This is going against one my own rules and pet hates, but the fact this thread is still going is seriously annoying me. I know I shouldnt post here and just not read it, but I've just a sneaky feeling I'm not alone in this regard, and can't help but reply this time. Sorry!

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

its this sort of delusion that is infuriating.

It's not up for debate that it was a Liverpool fan who commited the crime. It was. Without doubt.

Its the attitude "oh any aul Liverpool fan will do" that seems to be eminating from Utd fans which is annoying.



He was also identified by numerous people incl the staff at the hotel as being in his room at the time of the attack. Why do you keep ignoring this?

The eyewitness account that says he is guilty is proof enough for you.

The one that says he is innocent, is not.

Very strange.



It is a possibility that he has fooled everyone & that he guilty, of course thats a possibility.

But imo its far more likely that he is innocent, and thankfully, doubt is not something that can be afforded when you are talking about such a serious criminal charge & surely the most biased of Utd fans can admit there is serious doubt as to his guilt.

Where did I say "any aul Liverpool fan will do" Alan? I simply said that Shields was picked by a number of eye witnesses including the victim as being the culprit. EYE WITNESSES Alan, not you or me. Plural, they cannot all be wrong. Just because they're Bulgarians you are calling them liars are you? That is what I am basing my arguement on. I don't care if it was a Liverpool fan, a Milan fan or a Bulgarian that did it as long as justice is done, and in my opinion it was done when Shields was found guilty. Not because of his football allegience, but because he was picked out by a NUMBER of eye witnesses including the victim himself. Is that so hard to understand?! I wasn't aware that the hotel staff but the fact that the people in the hotel (ie his friends) were the people that said that he was in bed at the time seems very suspicious.

Out of curiosity, who in your opinion is guilty and what are you basing it on?

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

anyone who thinks he should still be in prison is crazy, or else they just fundamentally disagree with how justice systems are meant to work all around the world.

its also worth pointing out, every objection to his release i have seen in this forum has come from Utd fans.

But your argument is not simply that he should be free, your posts in this thread have been clear on your belief that he is completely innocent and was strung up by a corrupt Bulgarian justice system. The two arguments are completely different and (imo) your posts have been implying that anyone saying that he is guilty (not like we are actually convicting the guy, just giving an opinion on the case) is crazy, a united fan or a corrupt Bulgarian mafioso.

You haven't been arguing there is simply doubt that should mean he is free as it couldn't be, at the least, reasonably proven he was guilty. You have been saying he is innocent and that anyone who says differently is doing so out of spite (not unlike what people are saying of you and liverpool fans in general, i know)

cournioni

Trilla wrote: »

Seriously, what kind of debate is this?

Innocent versus guilty.

Mr Alan

ok well then lets agree to both hold our own opinions on whether or not he commited the crime but agree that he should not have been found guilty in a court & has had 4 years of his life stolen away from him unfairly.

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

ok well then lets agree to both hold our own opinions on whether or not he commited the crime but agree that he should not have been found guilty in a court & has had 4 years of his life stolen away from him unfairly.

not really a fair deal there Al.

We could agree that he should not have been found guilty (i'd need to know a lot more about the evidence on both sides and whether the evidence on both sides was verified)

However, if he IS guilty, then him being banged up for it would be fair, imo, regardless of the circumstances of the trial. If he is guilty, I wouldn't care what they did to actually find him guilty, as long as they did. That is, of course, based on the assumption that he is in fact guilty (for the purposes of this specific point and argument)

Mr Alan

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If he is guilty, I wouldn't care what they did to actually find him guilty, as long as they did. That is, of course, based on the assumption that he is in fact guilty (for the purposes of this specific point and argument)

that would obviously be impossible.

thankfully that is not really how we operate in modern society.

being that its a massive violation of human rights.

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

that would obviously be impossible.

thankfully that is not really how we operate in modern society.

being that its a massive violation of human rights.

While trying to murder someone isn't?

IMO, if you try to kill someone, all bets are off and whoever can do whatever they want to you. Same for rape and the filthy evil like. If you don't respect the rights of others, you should be afforded no rights yourself.

Mr Alan

did Michael Shields definately try & murder someone?

ilovelamp2000

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

What more would you expect from the government in the UK at the moment? Releasing a terrorist that is responsible for one of the biggest terrorist atrocities in Britain and now releasing Shields to win a few votes in Merseyside.

I don't see any evidence to say that he was innocent, and all of the witnesses have identified him as the culprit. I don't care what anybody says, if nine people identify you as the culprit, you are the culprit. It must have been some coincidence if all of the witnesses guessed it was Shields.

Once again, a cheeky chappy lovely harmless scouser gets away with it, just like Gerrard. Ridiculous.

Bitter.

FWIW Michael Shields doesn't need to provide evidence of his innocence, that's not how criminal justice works.

It's clear in this case that the police procedures relating to the arrest and detention were less than satisfactory. If it had happened here he'd never have been convicted. The police already had Graham Sankey and another fella in custody when they went to the hotel looking for a guy who the eyewitnesses identified as the third man in the group. The description they were given was that the fella was 5'7 tall and had dark hair. Have you ever seen Michael Shields ? Blond hair and six feet tall. Yet he was arrested and forced to wear clothes that didn't belong to him for a flawed police line-up. He was also seen handcuffed to a radiator by everyone who was an eyewitness.

Did you know that in an Irish court the accused never wears handcuffs in front of the jury ? Can you think why that might be ? Would it give them some impression that might be prejudicial ?


The only evidence that was produced was eye witness evidence, which is generally considered the most unreliable form of evidence in a criminal trial. In this instance it is hard to believe that evidence could actually be admitted given the flaws in the arrest and detention.

No physical evidence was ever produced despite there being a crime scene full of it.

A signed confession, witnessed by a solicitor, was written by Graham Sankey.

Now I personally don't believe that Michael Shields was asleep when everything happened but there's far too much doubt in the case for a safe conviction to be reached.

Which leads me back to the point I started with, it's not for Michael Shields to prove his innocence it's for the other side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime.

They never did that.

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

did Michael Shields definately try & murder someone?

not the point I was arguing Al.

I said IF he is in fact guilty, then it would not be fair for him to be free, regardless of whether it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt or not. A guilty person should not be free because they can get someone to lie for them.

If someone broke into your house and attacked a family member of yours - if you KNEW who did it, 100% you knew it, would you consider it fair for them to get off simply because one of their mates gave them a false alibi?

What is legally right, and what is fair, are not always the same thing.

Mr Alan

if he is guilty of course it wouldn't be right to free him.

but there is no realistic way of knowing that, that would not be open to exploitation in a big way without a fair trial, something he never got.

---

Whenever the legal system delivered another slap to Michael Shields' face, his only thought was for the pain it gave his family.

After the 15-year jail sentence, the Bulgarian courts and the European Court of Human Rights turning down appeals and the British Government refusing to grant him a pardon, the knowledge of what it was doing to his dad Michael, mum Maria and sisters Melissa and Laura left him in bits.

"Those four years have been hard for me but it's been even harder for my family. Whenever I got bad news my first thought was always, 'Oh God, I wonder how they're going to take it'," said the 22-year-old from Liverpool who was this week pardoned for an attack four years ago on a Bulgarian waiter.

"I was in jail, in my own little bubble. But I was worrying about how they were dealing with the knock-backs and people saying bad things about me. It's easy inside to get on with it but it's harder for them outside."

Despite no DNA, CCTV or forensic evidence and another man admitting the crime, Shields was found guilty of the attempted murder of Martin Georgiev in the Black Sea resort of Varna, five nights after Liverpool's Champions League Final STORY Reade victory in May 2005. He went on to serve four years and three months in Bulgarian and British prisons.

His morale hit rock-bottom when he went to Sofia for an appeal hearing, convinced, like his lawyers, that he would get a re-trial. All the judge did was cut his sentence to 10 years and raise his fine.

"When the European Court of Human Rights knocked me back and wouldn't even give me a reason why, I wanted to pack the fight in for good.

"I said to my dad, 'I'm not begging any more. That's it. Leave me alone. I'm fed up of waiting and hoping and nothing happening. I can't take any more disappointments'."

What picked him off the floor and kept him going through his bleakest moments was the unstinting support from his family and the people of Liverpool.

The hard work of his campaigners in Liverpool, led by the city council's Labour leader Joe Anderson, forced the Bulgarians to transfer him to Britain in November 2006.

Mosaics were held up on the Kop, bucket collections at Anfield raised over £20,000, fundraising events put thousands more into the fighting fund and Liverpool players rallied to the cause.

Jamie Carragher made a public appeal for then Prime Minister Tony Blair to become personally involved in the case, and the club invited Michael's father to their training ground to update the players on his plight. Without being asked for a penny the squad topped up the appeal fund by £50,000, allowing the £90,000 fine to be paid, and Michael to see out his time in an English prison.

Advertisement - article continues below »


"The support from Liverpool was just amazing. It really hit home how much people were thinking about me when I got birthday cards from Liverpool players.

"More than anything the support from LFC, the fans and Scousers in general have seen me though this. I feel very proud to come from my city. And if I hear anyone say anything bad about Liverpool I jump up and tell them they haven't got a clue. If I was from anywhere else in the world I'd still be rotting inside a Bulgarian jail.

"The Liverpool qualities that other people slag off really came out. It's the support of Liverpool that's got me where I am today. They paid the huge fine that got me back to Britain and then they let the Government know 'you've got to do something about this. We won't let it go'.

"When I was behind my cell door the words to You'll Never Walk Alone would come to me. I knew they were true. The people of Liverpool were making sure I didn't walk alone. I can't describe how much that helped me get through it."

Earlier this year, when Michael was out of prison on home leave, he went to the Melwood training ground to thank the players and staff. It was a dream come true for the Liverpool fanatic.

"Meeting them was crazy. Sami Hyypia was asking me, 'How is the case coming along?' and I'm thinking, 'How does he know about it?'

"Rafa Benitez was talking to me for about an hour and a half and he really knew what he was talking about. It was just bizarre. I should have been saying to them 'What about that goal?' but they just wanted to ask me about my case."

"My mum and dad had told me what everyone was doing for me back home, but because of the treatment I was getting over there I didn't believe it. It first hit me watching the Liverpool v Sunderland game the season after Istanbul, and the 'Free Michael' mosaic was held up right across the Kop with my name on it.

"They showed it on Bulgarian telly and I'm sitting there trying to take it in, saying to a Bulgarian fella, 'Look, that's me, that's me'. He didn't get it either."

Before travelling to Istanbul for the Champions League final, the quiet teenager from Edge Hill had qualified as a railway maintenance engineer and was ready to start a job, and build his adult life.

"I'm more street-wise than I was. But most of all it's taught me that you shouldn't take little things for granted, like playing footie with your nephew. It's taught me that you should just be there for them, because you never know what is going to happen."

The Muppet

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?

Mr Alan wrote: »

If people believe he is innocent, as i do ......................

Mr Alan wrote: »

if he is guilty of course it wouldn't be right to free him.

but there is no realistic way of knowing that, that would not be open to exploitation in a big way without a fair trial, something he never got.

---

Spot the difference. Glad to see you have changed your mind.;)

Melion

Someone else admitted to the crime, whats the problem with him being released?

cournioni

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Bitter.

FWIW Michael Shields doesn't need to provide evidence of his innocence, that's not how criminal justice works.

It's clear in this case that the police procedures relating to the arrest and detention were less than satisfactory. If it had happened here he'd never have been convicted. The police already had Graham Sankey and another fella in custody when they went to the hotel looking for a guy who the eyewitnesses identified as the third man in the group. The description they were given was that the fella was 5'7 tall and had dark hair. Have you ever seen Michael Shields ? Blond hair and six feet tall. Yet he was arrested and forced to wear clothes that didn't belong to him for a flawed police line-up. He was also seen handcuffed to a radiator by everyone who was an eyewitness.

Did you know that in an Irish court the accused never wears handcuffs in front of the jury ? Can you think why that might be ? Would it give them some impression that might be prejudicial ?

The only evidence that was produced was eye witness evidence, which is generally considered the most unreliable form of evidence in a criminal trial. In this instance it is hard to believe that evidence could actually be admitted given the flaws in the arrest and detention.

No physical evidence was ever produced despite there being a crime scene full of it.

A signed confession, witnessed by a solicitor, was written by Graham Sankey.

Now I personally don't believe that Michael Shields was asleep when everything happened but there's far too much doubt in the case for a safe conviction to be reached.

Which leads me back to the point I started with, it's not for Michael Shields to prove his innocence it's for the other side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime.

They never did that.

Bitter? About what exactly?

So its the police procedures that you are having the problem with is it? You think that despite the fact that he was identified by the witnesses as being the attacker that he should be let off. I'm sorry but I am a firm believer that if you are identified as being the guilty party by a number of different people then you are guilty. If that is the way that the system works over there and it works well for them then so be it. I somehow doubt that a number of witnesses INCLUDING THE VICTIM HIMSELF would identify just any English man in Bulgaria at the time.

I personally would prefer an identified offender be jailed than be set free on a technicality which happens all too often in this part of the world. But as Alan kindly pointed out in his last post that the EU found the case to be perfectly ok.

Theresalwaysone

Mr Alan wrote: »

if he is guilty of course it wouldn't be right to free him.

but there is no realistic way of knowing that, that would not be open to exploitation in a big way without a fair trial, something he never got.

Mr Alan wrote: »

The EU never looked into verdict of the case, simply into the trial & investigation procedures due to the fishy way in which they were carried out. they found that they were ok, but there is no smoke without fire etc, and with the political climate at the time (looking for/recent membership to the EU) & the high level of media attention on the case, i'm sure the bulgarians did everything in their power to sweep the mess they'd made under the carpet.

You said it yourself. The part about smoke fire, political climate and shady bulgarians is of course, all IYO, not fact and pure speculation. The Part about the EU finding it ok is fact though.

The EU actually found that the case was completely ok. So he did get a fair trial. Lying takes away from your points altogether Alan.

Mr Alan

i said on this thread on numerous occassions the EU found that his initial trial was ok?! I think they were wrong. So do the British government. So do numerous human rights lawyers & organistations.

do you think its ok to leave a suspect in a case handcuffed to a radiator for hours on end in a police foyer where people who are witness' for the crime in question can see him as they arrive to attend a line up?

do you think its ok to arrest someone who does not match the description of the person you are looking for simply because the room you are looking for is empty & the other person is of the same nationality?

do you think its ok to have someone serve a chunk of their life in prison when there is no physical evidence against that person and initial eye witness reports of the man who commited the crime are nothing like Michael Shields?

Muppet: i have no idea the point you're making.

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

Muppet: i have no idea the point you're making.

The point I am making is that earlier on in the thread you were saying Shields was innocent, now you are saying his conviction was unsafe. There is quite a difference.