Jailed LFC fan Michael Shields might be pardoned

[belboid]

Telegraph wopuld never have any interest in slagging off working-class scousers would they?

A rather different account, which rather undercuts most of the Torygraphs shite - http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2007/jun/03/features.magazine37

 

[London_Calling]

if even Straw, a repugnant piece of shit who has sat on this case for years, has had to accept Shields' total innocence, it should show anyone who cares to think that he very probably is.

No it doesn't. It just fits the view you want to hold.

 

[belboid]

you sound like one of them that says the Birmingham Six were probably guilty

 

[London_Calling]

Classic.

 

[rioted]

I'm sure they'd want to see actual justice. Which appears now to have been done - pardons only beng granted now if the person is 'morally' innocent - and Straw has said that Shields is both morally and technically innocent.

Where's the justice for the family of the murdered guy, though? Surely "actual justice" would mean the conviction of the "working class" (no doubt?) scouser who fessed up?

 

[STFC]

Telegraph wopuld never have any interest in slagging off working-class scousers would they?

A rather different account, which rather undercuts most of the Torygraphs shite - http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2007/jun/03/features.magazine37

Kevin Sampson is completely unbiased of course.

 

[skyscraper101]

It's painfully apparent to me is that Graham Sankey has a lot to answer for and should be re-arrested.

A re-trial should be the proper procedure for this case. Sankey getting off scot free, evidence not being accepted in Varna, Shields being pardoned but not acquitted, and an innocent man with lifelong brain damage with nobody inside doing time over it is a HUGE miscarriage of justice.

Martin Georgiev deserves better than that.

 

[maximilian ping]

Michael Shields is from Liverpool. Are we sure he's innocent?

 

[skyscraper101]

Where's the justice for the family of the murdered guy, though? Surely "actual justice" would mean the conviction of the "working class" (no doubt?) scouser who fessed up?

He wasn't murdered.

 

[belboid]

Where's the justice for the family of the murdered guy, though? Surely "actual justice" would mean the conviction of the "working class" (no doubt?) scouser who fessed up?

So Shields shouldnt get justice because Georgiev's family hasnt had it?

 

[London_Calling]

They did get justice.

 

[belboid]

aah, so you are now totally convinced of his guilt. Not just maybe, but totally. Despite the fact that the witnesses couldn't agree as to what role Shields supposedly played, dedspite the fact that the ID parade was clearly a farce, and there was no attempt to collect physical evidence. Had the case been tried in Britain it would have been thrown out on umpteen technical grounds.

 

[futha]

Don't like it at all.

Very dangerous to ignore one jurisdiction’s justice in favour of another, especially when the victim was a national of the other jurisdiction. Can you imagine the furore if this was a British death and the convicted had been returned to his country and then pardoned. Really, what is the point of having trials.

The murdered man had two young children, you wonder what they must think.

I agree with this.

 

[skyscraper101]

yeah, except he wasn't murdered.

 

[futha]

yeah, except he wasn't murdered.

Yes except that bit.

 

[belboid]

so you'd reject the possibility of new evidence coming to light? or would you just say that evidence shouldn't be considered? cos that is (apparently) why he has been freed. L_C clearly isnt actually concerned with the facts, but I'd hope most other people were.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The Everton fans won't be able to sing their little ditty now.

Telegraph wopuld never have any interest in slagging off working-class scousers would they?

A rather different account, which rather undercuts most of the Torygraphs shite - http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2007/jun/03/features.magazine37

It seemed to me that there was enough doubt about this case to get a conviction.

 

[futha]

so you'd reject the possibility of new evidence coming to light? or would you just say that evidence shouldn't be considered? cos that is (apparently) why he has been freed. L_C clearly isnt actually concerned with the facts, but I'd hope most other people were.

It seems like it was all a bit of a mess (stating the obvious i know). No forensic evidence to back it up the conviction for the assault, why not?

 

[Fedayn]

Telegraph wopuld never have any interest in slagging off working-class scousers would they?

A rather different account, which rather undercuts most of the Torygraphs shite - http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2007/jun/03/features.magazine37

Any chance you might get a non-fiction writing Liverpool fan to write something?

 

[Fedayn]

you sound like one of them that says the Birmingham Six were probably guilty

Stop slavvering.

 

[Fedayn]

so you'd reject the possibility of new evidence coming to light? or would you just say that evidence shouldn't be considered? cos that is (apparently) why he has been freed. L_C clearly isnt actually concerned with the facts, but I'd hope most other people were.

What new evidence?

 

[Fedayn]

so you'd reject the possibility of new evidence coming to light? or would you just say that evidence shouldn't be considered? cos that is (apparently) why he has been freed. L_C clearly isnt actually concerned with the facts, but I'd hope most other people were.

Facts such as Bulgarian witnesses identifying Shields? Those nasty Bulgarians.....

 

[skyscraper101]

It seems like it was all a bit of a mess (stating the obvious i know). No forensic evidence to back it up the conviction for the assault, why not?

Why go forensic though? The man had a paving slab thrown on his head. He got a fractured skull and brain damage - however, he was not murdered. Given that there were several witness accounts to the incident, and probably very little that forensic examination could conclude, did it really need to go forensic?

The issue here is the fact that vital evidence was not considered, or rejected, and that there the conviction has become increasingly unstable due to this all coming to light and an evidently stronger case against Graham Sankey being built. So, should Shields be pardoned? No. Because that suggests while the British courts accept the guilt, they don't accept the sentence. Should there be a retrial? Yes. The evidence supports it and casts enough doubt in my opinion. Not to mention that seeing as Martin Georgiev will be brain damaged for life by these hooligans, he deserves justice as much as Michael Shields does.

 

[belboid]

Stop slavvering.

slavvering??? have you read L_C's shite? He doesn't know what he's talking about

 

[Fedayn]

so you'd reject the possibility of new evidence coming to light? or would you just say that evidence shouldn't be considered? cos that is (apparently) why he has been freed. L_C clearly isnt actually concerned with the facts, but I'd hope most other people were.

Mr Straw said that fresh evidence had come to light during a meeting with the Shields family on 28 August.

He was told that two members of the family had visited the home of another man alleged to be responsible for the crime, shortly after the attack in 2005.

"I was told in the course of the visit that the man made an oral confession in front of several other people," Mr Straw said.

"This episode, I was told, happened on 22 July 2005, a day after the start of Mr Shields' trial in Bulgaria.

"I will not set out in this statement all the evidence that has come to light over the last two weeks but suffice it to say that there is very good reason to believe I was being told the truth."

Mr Straw added: "I have now 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 and she has graciously assented."

So, a 2nd or 3rd hand confession is taken as 'evidence' now? If so goodo I hope it applies across the board! Is there other evidence? It seems clear Straw is saying so, so why is it not public? Why is justice not being seen to be done? What compelling new evidence as Straw and the government knew about the meeting Shields family had with the alleged culprit long ago. So what's new?

 

[Fedayn]

slavvering??? have you read L_C's shite? He doesn't know what he's talking about

I don't care what he's saying frankly. You're telling us you know an innocent man has been released, NO you don't, none of us do. There's plenty of conflicting evidence. Eyewitnesses alleging totally contradictory events. So, what 'new evidence' is Straw a party to? I think it should be made public.

 

[skyscraper101]

So, are we to expect fresh arrests?

 

[belboid]

Any chance you might get a non-fiction writing Liverpool fan to write something?

care to deal with the facts, rather than just who wrote them?

Facts such as Bulgarian witnesses identifying Shields? Those nasty Bulgarians.....

as is pointed out, those witnesses- whose nationality is totally irrelevant so dont try n play that fucking card - contradicted themselves as to Shields' supposed role, and only identified him after seeing him shackled to a radiator in the cells. The others in his line up also looked absolutely nothing like him (which they are meant to do in a lineup). If that had hgappened in the UK all the evidence would hgave been inadmissable.

Shields' conviction is based on a lolt of shite. That doesnt mean he is 'innocent' but there is more than enough doubt that were he tried in Britain he would very probably get off - tho it quite possibly wouldn't even come to trial

 

[belboid]

I don't care what he's saying frankly. You're telling us you know an innocent man has been released, NO you don't, none of us do. There's plenty of conflicting evidence. Eyewitnesses alleging totally contradictory events. So, what 'new evidence' is Straw a party to? I think it should be made public.

I've never said Shields was 'innocent' - I have pointed out that the evidence against him is dodgy.

 

[Fedayn]

care to deal with the facts, rather than just who wrote them?

Hmmmm.... just like you did with the Telegraph article you mean.... Nice double standards there. Point out what the Telegraph article got wrong then?

as is pointed out, those witnesses- whose nationality is totally irrelevant so dont try n play that fucking card - contradicted themselves as to Shields' supposed role, and only identified him after seeing him shackled to a radiator in the cells. The others in his line up also looked absolutely nothing like him (which they are meant to do in a lineup). If that had hgappened in the UK all the evidence would hgave been inadmissable.

Shields' conviction is based on a lolt of shite. That doesnt mean he is 'innocent' but there is more than enough doubt that were he tried in Britain he would very probably get off - tho it quite possibly wouldn't even come to trial

And the fact that the victim identified him is irrelevant I suppose? Well that card has been played by Shields family time and time again, so fairs fair... Unless it's only allowed for them to make such sweeping statements.
Sankey also contradicted himself and Shields and his other mates.