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

Handsome Bob

Boggles wrote: »

Stop making shíté up!

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

Ha ha, jesus christ Boggles. You have the nerve to accuse me of making ****e up then in the next line spout off some highly questionable ****e yourself. This thread is just one big wind up, **** this.

Boggles

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Ha ha, jesus christ Boggles. You have the nerve to accuse me of making ****e up

No, you actually made that up, didn't you?

LZ5by5 wrote: »

then in the next line spout off some highly questionable ****e yourself. This thread is just one big wind up, **** this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6162928/Graham-Sankeys-confession.html

Handsome Bob

No I didn't make it up, I was just responding to a ridiculous claim that Sankey confessed to the wrong crime. Due to the publicity and the nature of the crime (dropping a cement block on someones head) there is no way Sankey confessed to the "wrong crime".

And so what if two of his relatives went around to him, you're going on as if they took a confession by force, and you have NO proof for that. They could have appealed to his better nature for one. I don't know about you Boggles but if someone told me that an innocent 18/19 year old was serving 15 years away from his family for something I did, I would feel pretty ****ing disgusted with myself and would feel compelled to confess.

Boggles

LZ5by5 wrote: »

No I didn't make it up, I was just responding to a ridiculous claim that Sankey confessed to the wrong crime. Due to the publicity and the nature of the crime (dropping a cement block on someones head) there is no way Sankey confessed to the "wrong crime".

Could you link to where Sankey confessed to dropping a cement block on someones head?

LZ5by5 wrote: »

And so what if two of his relatives went around to him, you're going on as if they took a confession by force, and you have NO proof for that.

Again could you point out where I said that?

LZ5by5 wrote: »

They could have appealed to his better nature for one. I don't know about you Boggles but if someone told me that an innocent 18/19 year old was serving 15 years away from his family for something I did, I would feel pretty ****ing disgusted with myself and would feel compelled to confess.

Or option C, they could have told him the Bulgarians could do nothing to him if he confessed and it would help out Michael.

We can all do hypotheticals.

Fact is nearly a dozen people he never met before or had any dealings with said he did it.

Why would 3 bulgarian waitresses want to conspire against Shields?

Handsome Bob

Boggles wrote: »

Could you link to where Sankey confessed to dropping a cement block on someones head?

Sure, see Trevor McDonalds documentary. I think someone already posted it. Before you say it, I already pointed out how unlikely it is that Sankey would confess to the "wrong crime."

Again could you point out where I said that?

It's the suggestion Boggles, why else would you bring it up if you didn't think his relatives took a confession by force?

Why would 3 bulgarian waitresses want to conspire against Shields?

If you actually watch Trevor McDonalds documentary you'll see that the police went to arrest Sankey in the hotel but he wasn't there. So they randomly tried the door opposite Sankey's room which was Shield's room. They then told him to put on clothes matching what the assailant had been wearing, including a white t-shirt. The reconstruction suggested that the guy who dropped the block ran suddenly into the fight, and then quickly ran away after doing it. The eye witnesses were asked to identify a guy who they had only seen for a few seconds amongst absolute bedlam. Shields, wearing similar clothes to the assailant, was the perfect fall guy.

Boggles

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Sure, see Trevor McDonalds documentary. I think someone already posted it. Before you say it, I already pointed out how unlikely it is that Sankey would confess to the "wrong crime."

Thats not what you said though, you pullled out of thin air that Sankey confessed to dropped a 4 kilo cement block on the guys head. Which is a lie.

In fact his confession was inconsistent with what actually happened.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

It's the suggestion Boggles, why else would you bring it up if you didn't think his relatives took a confession by force?

Suggestion. FFS. Who am I Derren Brown? Cop the fook on!

LZ5by5 wrote: »

If you actually watch Trevor McDonalds documentary you'll see that the police went to arrest Sankey in the hotel but he wasn't there. So they randomly tried the door opposite Sankey's room which was Shield's room.

What the fook has a documentary got to do with anything, I watch a documentary last night that showed how no planes crashed into the twin towers, they were actually missiles and CGI.

Doesn't make it any less loopey!

Why was all this not brought up in the trial.

If wrong doings like that carried on, why did the European Court of Human Rights say the ARREST and Detainment of shields was sound??

LZ5by5 wrote: »

They then told him to put on clothes matching what the assailant had been wearing, including a white t-shirt.

If it did happen, Shields was wearing a cream t-shirt, hardly a big difference. Shields and Sankly have radicly different hair colour, are you suggesting they died his hair aswell. :rolleyes:

LZ5by5 wrote: »

The reconstruction suggested that the guy who dropped the block ran suddenly into the fight, and then quickly ran away after doing it. The eye witnesses were asked to identify a guy who they had only seen for a few seconds amongst absolute bedlam.

So a nearly a dozen eye witnesses all got it wrong.

Sweet Jesus!

Lads, I really don't want to seem like a know it all but...

LZ5by5 you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you refer to confession evidence. There are very strict rules about it for the very reason that quite often people confess to crimes they didn't commit for a variety of reasons.

Oh, and your claim that the police tried Sankey's door and then randomly tried someone else's is so far beyond ridiculous it is truly astounding. That one act would have given the European Court of Human Rights the power to not only hear the case but more than likely overturn the decision of the Bulgarian court.


Actually I meant to say this yesterday when replying to Rosco. None of you have the faintest clue about the legal issues involved here and almost every post in this thread that tries to argue legal hypotheticals (eye-witness evidence, confessions, retraction of confessions, legality of detention etc) ends up talking complete nonsense.

I am not trying to pontificate here but this issue is too complex for most people to really understand and nobody, including me, is an expert in the Bulgarian justice system or has access to any information other than biased (and if you don't think it's biased then you need to go back and live in your little cotton-candy land) newspaper reports and documentaries.

You cannot possibly discuss this topic in a reasonable fashion because, basically, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

Paul Tergat

Well said Kayroo. I said it earlier in the thread that its a situation where nobody really knows what the facts where and what the true legal issues are here. It's far too complicated for us to comprehend exactly what we are dealing with.

Iago

This thread has continued to go around in circles. It's clear at this point that neither side is for the moving and with the exception of Kayroo (who has admitted his own lack of knowledge regarding the intricacy of the Bulgarian system), there doesn't seem to be anyone on either side of the debate that can bring a wealth of legal information to bear.

We've now moved into a stage where baseless assumptions are forming on both sides of the argument, and the only way I can see this going is people getting banned for crossing the line.

As such this thread is now closed.