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

Mr Alan

have you ever heard of the expression innocent until proven guilty?

a trial & the investigation into the crime in question is not sound, any verdict is irrelevant imo.

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

have you ever heard of the expression innocent until proven guilty?

a trial & the investigation into the crime in question is not sound, any verdict is irrelevant imo.

That doesn't mean the accused is innocent.

Mitch Connor

Melion wrote: »

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

That guy then retracted his 'confession' saying it was probably a different fight he was in, and his version of the events do not match those given by the numerous eye witness's.

So, his confession should be given no more weight than if I was to confess to it, or if you were.

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

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.

As we pointed out before, the British Government have just released:

1) Released a convicted and terminally ill train-robber who has not paid his debt to society and shown no remorse for his crime.

2) Released a convicted and terminally ill terrorist responsible for the worst act of terrorism witnessed in Britain.

3) Released a convicted Liverpool fan because (as far as I can see) the majority Liverpool fans like their justice to be a one way street and it would have cost Labour votes.

As for human rights lawyers and organisations, they are responsible for as many people getting away with the worst crimes as they are for innocent people. I would not put a hell of alot of trust in them. What I do put my trust in however is the number of eye witnesses, and the trial that the EU has deemed perfectly ok.

I'm sorry Alan, but this corrupt Bulgarian stereotype you are trying to put across is not going to rub with me.

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

That doesn't mean the accused is innocent.

in the eyes of the law it does.

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

a trial & the investigation into the crime in question is not sound, any verdict is irrelevant imo.

As you kindly pointed out earlier Alan, the EU found it to be sound. If you don't trust the European justice system, then what do you trust?

Mr Alan

do you think the EU has never made a mistake?

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

do you think the EU has never made a mistake?

No, however...

PORNAPSTER wrote:

As we pointed out before, the British Government have just released:

1) Released a convicted and terminally ill train-robber who has not paid his debt to society and shown no remorse for his crime.

2) Released a convicted and terminally ill terrorist responsible for the worst act of terrorism witnessed in Britain.

3) Released a convicted Liverpool fan because (as far as I can see) the majority Liverpool fans like their justice to be a one way street and it would have cost Labour votes.

All in a matter of weeks. To be perfectly honest, I know who I would trust and it wouldn't be the British judicial system.

RasTa

I doubt he is 100% innocent but I don't think he was the main culprit so 4 years seems about right for GBH.

ilovelamp2000

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

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.

I'll reiterate the point which you seem to be ignoring, witness evidence is regarded as the most unreliable evidence there can possibly be. The description of the person that was given to the police by those people could not correspond to Michael Shields.

Yet he was arrested.

it's easy to see you understand nothing about the criminal justice system and what is a fair procedures and a fair trial.

Iago

This thread is rapidly coming to the end of it's life. If posters start attacking each other rather than the salient points that will happen all the sooner.

cournioni

Rosco1982 wrote: »

I'll reiterate the point which you seem to be ignoring, witness evidence is regarded as the most unreliable evidence there can possibly be. The description of the person that was given to the police by those people could not correspond to Michael Shields.

Yet he was arrested.

it's easy to see you understand nothing about the criminal justice system and what is a fair procedures and a fair trial.

I see, and the ECoHR found the trial to be perfectly ok for some strange reason. Must be very unreliable evidence.

Its easy to see that you have your blinkers on, hence the "bitter" comment in your last post. You have no knowledge of me so come down of that horse with long legs. If you were the criminal justice guru that you make yourself out to be why the hell are you here spouting it and not out fighting crime...

Boggles

Personally I don't think Jack Straw found new evidence or has any real opinion on whether Shields is innocent or guilty.

Straw like most politicians will bow to strong public support on most issues.

More of a case of If Shields committed the crime in the UK he probably would have been out too at this stage after 4/5 years.

Make no mistake though Shields was found guilty of attempted murder, which was declared sound by the European Human Rights courts. He is an Attempted Murderer.

What gets my craw is the likes of Gerrard coming out and saying Shields inspires him, Liverpool wanting to give him the freedom of the stadium.

It's enough to make you sick.

Theresalwaysone

Rosco1982 wrote: »

I'll reiterate the point which you seem to be ignoring, witness evidence is regarded as the most unreliable evidence there can possibly be.

This isnt true. At all.

Rosco1982 wrote: »

it's easy to see you understand nothing about the criminal justice system and what is a fair procedures and a fair trial.

It was ruled to be sound and fair.

Mr Alan

then it was ruled that he was innocent in another instance.

_blank_

Not Guilty does not equal innocence.

Rosco1982

Rosco1982 wrote: »

I'll reiterate the point which you seem to be ignoring, witness evidence is regarded as the most unreliable evidence there can possibly be. The description of the person that was given to the police by those people could not correspond to Michael Shields.

Yet he was arrested.

it's easy to see you understand nothing about the criminal justice system and what is a fair procedures and a fair trial.

OK, I am sorry but you are either sadly mistaken, woefully misinformed or lying.
All identification evidence must come with a verbal warning as to the possibility of being wrong however the severity of that warning will be determined by the trial judge and will be based on the necessary facts of the case.

Eye witness evidence is the golden standard of criminal evidence so long as positive identification is possible. If you are making the point that identification evidence is necessarily looked upon with a wary eye by the courts due to the possibility of being wrong then I cede your point, however the courts have held in this jurisdiction (in People (DPP) -V- O'Reilly) as well as in our neighbouring English jurisdiction that formal identification parades are, as a matter of course, very reliable due to the controls placed in them to foil a false identification and thus identifications gained by them are very much admissible as evidence to the jury.

Your basic premise, by the by, that:

Rosco1982 wrote: »

witness evidence is regarded as the most unreliable evidence there can possibly be.

Is complete and total nonsense. Witness, or oral, evidence is the absolute backbone of the adversarial court system. Hearsay evidence is the most unreliable evidence in a court room. It is quite clear to me that it is you who does not understand the first thing about fair procedures or the criminal justice system.


Oh, and since the ECHR verified the process that means that the Bulgarians satisfied the very highest standard for criminal proceedings in the world. So I highly doubt the judge erred in allowing identification evidence that satisfied a conviction on a charge as serious as the one for which Mr. Shields was found guilty.

Iago

Just from a definition point of view ( I don't know enough about the legal system or the case to comment on anything else)

A Royal Pardon does not confer innocence on the receipient, it pardons or forgives the crimes/convictions of the receipient and restores their full rights.

In fact by it's very definition it supposes guilt in the first instance (I think)

edit: although I've been corrected somewhat by Kayroo below

Des

Des wrote: »

Not Guilty does not equal innocence.

Yes, it does.

It is a natural corollary of the principal of innocent until proven guilty.

Mr Alan

Iago, while i get your point, Jack Straw disagrees with you.

Jack Straw wrote:

12. In assessing this difficult case I was tasked, as I have already mentioned, by the Administrative Court in December 2008 to determine whether having considered any fresh evidence which the Bulgarian courts did not consider, alongside that which they did, it would be justifiable to conclude that Michael Shields is morally and technically innocent.

13. I have concluded, having looked carefully at all the evidence now available, that Michael Shields is telling the truth when he says he is innocent of the attempted murder of which he was convicted in Bulgaria. That being so I have recommended to Her Majesty the Queen that he should be granted a free pardon. Mr Shields is being released from prison today and will return home to his family a free man.

watever the mechanism used, the most important thing is that he is out of prison.

Iago

Iago wrote: »

Just from a definition point of view ( I don't know enough about the legal system or the case to comment on anything else)

A Royal Pardon does not confer innocence on the receipient, it pardons or forgives the crimes/convictions of the receipient and restores their full rights.

In fact by it's very definition is supposes guilt in the first instance.

Again, slightly inaccurate. It can be given where a manifest injustice has occurred or where there are circumstances where the Crown feels that mercy should be shown to the convicted.

It does not presuppose guilt whatsoever. It simply does not absolve the party of their conviction. It does so in order to preserve harmony of powers by the Crown as all convictions handed down are done so under the Crown's authority and for the Crown to intercede and overturn convictions would be contrary to the separation of powers. It is a technical distinction used to avoid encroachment by the Executive power upon the judiciary

Mr Alan

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, slightly inaccurate. It can be given where a manifest injustice has occurred or where there are circumstances where the Crown feels that mercy should be shown to the convicted.

It does not presuppose guilt whatsoever. It simply does not absolve the party of their conviction. It does so in order to preserve harmony of powers by the Crown as all convictions handed down are done so under the Crown's authority and for the Crown to intercede and overturn convictions would be contrary to the separation of powers. It is a technical distinction used to avoid encroachment by the Executive power upon the judiciary

i was JUST about to say that :eek::P

The Muppet

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, it does.

It is a natural corollary of the principal of innocent until proven guilty.

I think you mis understood the point being made. Legally a person found not guilty did not commit the crime ,factually they may still be guilty of pepetrating the crime.

That's irrelevant in this case as the person was found guilty and that ruling was upheld in the EU.

Theresalwaysone

The Muppet wrote: »

I think you mis understood the point being made. Legally a person found not guilty did not commit the crime ,factually they may still be guilty of pepetrating the crime.

That's irrelevant in this case as the person was found guilty and that ruling was upheld in the EU.

Surely though the trial is to establish the facts and make a judgement on that... so its the same thing?

Besides that, the oft quoted "Innocent until proven guilty" means that it naturally follows that not guilty= innocent.

The Muppet

The Muppet wrote: »

I think you mis understood the point being made. Legally a person found not guilty did not commit the crime ,factually they may still be guilty of pepetrating the crime.

That's irrelevant in this case as the person was found guilty and that ruling was upheld in the EU.

I understood the point being made. I was simply pointing out he was wrong. It is a point that most people misunderstand quite frequently. If he was not guilty then he is, in fact, innocent. Believe me when I say I am quite au fait with the concepts involved.


Can I just make a quick note here too. The EU has NOTHING to do with the European Court of Human Rights. It was the latter that approved the procedures (not necessarily the conviction) in this case.

Theresalwaysone

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Surely though the trial is to establish the facts and make a judgement on that... so its the same thing?

Besides that, the oft quoted "Innocent until proven guilty" means that it naturally follows that not guilty= innocent.

This is also bang on. A jury is considered to be the tribunal of fact. If the facts are in dispute they will determine them based on the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury delivers a not guilty verdict then the person is, IN FACT, not guilty and is therefore, as a corollary of the principal of innocent until proven guilty, de facto innocent.

ilovelamp2000

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, I am sorry but you are either sadly mistaken, woefully misinformed or lying.
All identification evidence must come with a verbal warning as to the possibility of being wrong however the severity of that warning will be determined by the trial judge and will be based on the necessary facts of the case.

Eye witness evidence is the golden standard of criminal evidence so long as positive identification is possible. If you are making the point that identification evidence is necessarily looked upon with a wary eye by the courts due to the possibility of being wrong then I cede your point, however the courts have held in this jurisdiction (in People (DPP) -V- O'Reilly) as well as in our neighbouring English jurisdiction that formal identification parades are, as a matter of course, very reliable due to the controls placed in them to foil a false identification and thus identifications gained by them are very much admissible as evidence to the jury.

Your basic premise, by the by, that:



Is complete and total nonsense. Witness, or oral, evidence is the absolute backbone of the adversarial court system. Hearsay evidence is the most unreliable evidence in a court room. It is quite clear to me that it is you who does not understand the first thing about fair procedures or the criminal justice system.


Oh, and since the ECHR verified the process that means that the Bulgarians satisfied the very highest standard for criminal proceedings in the world. So I highly doubt the judge erred in allowing identification evidence that satisfied a conviction on a charge as serious as the one for which Mr. Shields was found guilty.

None of the necessary controls were in place in Bulgaria. As has been mentioned numerous times in this bloody thread already. This is the main reason the conviction is unsafe.

Hearsay evidence is rarely admissable so not worth mentioning.

No evidence other than the eyewitness evidence was produced to show Shield's guilt.

Bulgaria's own top prosecutor admitted their were serious doubts over the conviction.

The ECHR didn't give the Bulgarian system a thumbs up, they ruled the case inadmissable.

Theresalwaysone

Rosco1982 wrote: »

No evidence other than the eyewitness evidence was produced to show Shield's guilt.

Link? Source?

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Bulgaria's own top prosecutor admitted their were serious doubts over the conviction.

Link?Source?

Rosco1982 wrote: »

The ECHR didn't give the Bulgarian system a thumbs up, they ruled the case inadmissable.

Link?Source?

I'm genuienly interested in reading these btw. Find this whole case very interesting.

Also, the main point of your recent posts was about how eye witness evidence is regarded as the most unreliable form of evidence, this has been shown be a complete lie. What say you?

Helix

mayordenis wrote: »

completely agree and likewise believing he's guilty.

exactly

ilovelamp2000

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Link? Source?



Link?Source?



Link?Source?

I'm genuienly interested in reading these btw. Find this whole case very interesting.

Also, the main point of your recent posts was about how eye witness evidence is regarded as the most unreliable form of evidence, this has been shown be a complete lie. What say you?

"The Justice Secretary’s provisional decision rests heavily
on the findings of the Bulgarian court, which relied
exclusively on identification evidence that would not
have been admitted in courts in this country. He fails to
mention the admission by Tsoni Tsonev, member of the
Bulgarian Supreme Judicial Council, that there were
doubts about Michael Shields’ conviction, in reply to
the petition placed before the European Parliament by
Arlene McCarthy, MEP on 27 May 2008. Neither has
my right hon. Friend referred to the concern expressed
about the Bulgarian legal system in the European
Commission’s 2005 progress report"

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/chan112.pdf

Technically the other guy is right, hearsay is more unreliable than idenitification evidence. But hearsay is so rarely admissable that I didn't consider it.

If you google "the vagaries of identification evidence" you'll find loads of articles on why it's unreliable.

Rosco1982

Rosco1982 wrote: »

None of the necessary controls were in place in Bulgaria. As has been mentioned numerous times in this bloody thread already. This is the main reason the conviction is unsafe.

If the above statement were true then the ECHR would have had grounds to hear the case under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the preliminary hearings Shields' lawyers were unable to make a prima facie case that any procedural safeguards were not in place to such an extent as to render his conviction unlawful under Arts. 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention.

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Hearsay evidence is rarely admissable so not worth mentioning.

You said witness evidence was the most unreliable. That statement was woefully incorrect on a number of levels. Most obviously you should have said visual identification evidence. Witness evidence is, in fact, the preferred type of evidence by a court. They much prefer it over documentary evidence. Also, hearsay evidence is constantly being admitted as shown by the sheer number of exceptions to the rule against hearsay that exist in Irish and English law.

Rosco1982 wrote: »

No evidence other than the eyewitness evidence was produced to show Shield's guilt.

This is a bizarre enough statement. If 10 people see me do something and identify me, does that not satisfy the burden of proof?

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Bulgaria's own top prosecutor admitted their were serious doubts over the conviction.

I'd love to see the source for that. If you quote any British newspaper without an official Bulgarian source I must admit I'll find it laughable.

Rosco1982 wrote: »

The ECHR didn't give the Bulgarian system a thumbs up, they ruled the case inadmissable.

I dealt with this above. They had no competence to rule on the case as it didn't come under Art. 5,6 or 7. The Articles dealing with fair procedures and due process.

ilovelamp2000

Meh

Just one more thing for Rosco.

Bulgaria have their own legal system which, I am willing to admit, I am not wholly familiar with. They are entitled to their own practices and procedures so long as they comply with the European Convention to which they are signatories as members of the Council of Europe since 1992. If they have a different approach to visual identification evidence then so be it, that does not render the conviction invalid unless it goes beyond the remit of Articles 5,6 and 7.

Rosco1982

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Meh

Ha. Fair enough

Helix

does this thread even belong in the football forum?

doesnt involve a football team, a football manager, a footballer, a match, or anything to do with football apart from the fact that it happened hours and hours after a football match?

Handsome Bob

Des wrote: »

Not Guilty does not equal innocence.

In the eyes of the law, it does. You cannot just ignore the fact that someone was found innocent of a crime just because it doesn't suit your own personal view on the matter. Unless I am privvy to some information that says otherwise I will treat someone found innocent as just that, innocent. What's the point of someone going to the stress of a trial and being found innocent if people are going to treat them as if they were found guilty?

I'm speaking in general terms here, which I know is off topic.

Pighead

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Meh

For those who aren't down with the youth of todays vernacular the above translates as "Fcuk it, I'm out of here. Kayroo has called out my bullshit and I have absolutely nothing left"

d22ontour

Helix wrote: »

does this thread even belong in the football forum?

doesnt involve a football team, a football manager, a footballer, a match, or anything to do with football apart from the fact that it happened hours and hours after a football match?

Its more than about football it's about justice for those imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit just like the A-team. :pac:

Am glad he got out if he didn't do it but honestly it is cringeworthy reading Irish people bleating on about British people being wrongly imprisoned when it's happened on this island and in Britain with Irish people being wrongly imprisoned yet i doubt theres been any posts/threads made on their behalf by most of the 'Free Michael Sheilds brigade'.

Mr Alan

for anyone who wants to get a better idea on the subject;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia2F0n5WUTI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zFPX9-jPDE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8otoaGxSqU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzG1nEg8pcQ

cournioni

Mr Alan wrote: »

for anyone who wants to get a better idea on the subject;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia2F0n5WUTI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zFPX9-jPDE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8otoaGxSqU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzG1nEg8pcQ

As I said before, that documentry is sickeningly lobsided.

dreamers75

"someone" admitted to it to the parents but the english judge didnt seek to have them extradited.


And they wonder why everyone hates them.

Mr Alan

ok here's another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7E5aTqP76Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtFIspCPvFA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9OyX3SKczY

Handsome Bob

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

As I said before, that documentry is sickeningly lobsided.

lol, besides for the fact that the guy who was actually in the white shirt coming clean, what more do you want? It's only lobsided because you don't want to believe it. By your reasoning I could call any documentary that I don't agree with ****e just because I don't agree with it, irrespective of the facts presented. It's pathetic really.

cournioni

LZ5by5 wrote: »

lol, besides for the fact that the guy who was actually in the white shirt coming clean, what more do you want? It's only lobsided because you don't want to believe it. By your reasoning I could call any documentary that I don't agree with ****e just because I don't agree with it, irrespective of the facts presented. It's pathetic really.

Incorrect, the statement given by "the man in the white shirt" was totally different to eye witness' description of the event. Hence why "the man in the white shirt" withdrew his apology stating that he had been in a different fight.

Mr Alan

why was there no other police/hospital reports of people being hit with a brick on that night?

why did some of the eye witness's (incl the victim) initially say that Shields was the one who punched the man, not the one who threw the brick?

Handsome Bob

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

Incorrect, the statement given by "the man in the white shirt" was totally different to eye witness' description of the event. Hence why "the man in the white shirt" withdrew his apology stating that he had been in a different fight.

So you accept someone withdrawing their admittance to a crime just because an "eyewitness" thought that he saw something different? Ask yourself this, why would someone admit to such a crime?

cournioni

LZ5by5 wrote: »

So you accept someone withdrawing their admittance to a crime just because an "eyewitness" thought that he saw something different? Ask yourself this, why would someone admit to such a crime?

Who said anything about the eye witnesses being unsure about the incidents. If you have a link please post it. All eye witnesses as far as I am aware were certain of what they saw.

As far as the Sankey thing goes, his admittance statement did not match that of the eye witnesses, he withdrew as he believed he was in a separate fight as far as I'm aware. I cannot see anything wrong with withdrawing his statement if it was for something completely different.

Helix

lads, youre all argueing over stuff that nobody here has a breeze about

nobody from here was there, nobody from here has a clue what happened. bloody nora

some bloke who happens to follow the same football club as some of you, and a different football club to the rest, was done for something none of us actually know whether he did, and then he was pardoned for it.

how on EARTH does this get to 14 feckin pages on a football forum

Handsome Bob

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

Who said anything about the eye witnesses being unsure about the incidents. If you have a link please post it. All eye witnesses as far as I am aware were certain of what they saw.

As far as the Sankey thing goes, his admittance statement did not match that of the eye witnesses, he withdrew as he believed he was in a separate fight as far as I'm aware. I cannot see anything wrong with withdrawing his statement if it was for something completely different.

Yeah he mixed it up with a totally different fight which conviently also involved him dropping a 4 kilo cement block on someone elses head, which somehow went unreported.

Boggles

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Yeah he mixed it up with a totally different fight which conviently also involved him dropping a 4 kilo cement block on someone elses head, which somehow went unreported.

Stop making shíté up!

Also he only made the "confession" when 2 members of Shields family came to visit him in his house.