The forgotten fan

**anto1208** · 19/04/2006, 10:40 AM

i Wasnt sure if this should be world football or off topic please move it if its in the wrong place .

Anyone watch this after the champs league game last night and M Shields the liverpool fan locked up for 15 years for a crime he didnt commit . I must say i had my doughts before but looking at the evidence last night there is no way in hell he should have been convicted of this .

His eye wittness's were nt aloud to testify .Nor the statement from the guy who did it Shankey another liverpool fan and known trouble maker .

3 eye wittness statements where made 2 said he threw a puch 1 said he threw a rock .

The waiters statement said he threw a punch that knocked him out which he later changed to he threw the rock ! . How can an unconsious man see who threw the rock .

None of this is from Shields account this is the actual evidence the cops got a conviction on .No evidence what so ever no finger prints no DNA only the evidence from eye wittnesses that is so different in each case that it would be thrown straight out in this country .

**4tothefloor** · 19/04/2006, 2:09 PM

Yeah it seems that Shilelds could be innocent having watched the documentary, he seems like a quiet lad, a bit innocent looking and sounding. But having said that, it's not as cut and dried as it seems. The docu left out a few glaring points in the case. I posted an article on this after it first happened, it's here.

I agree that the 'evidence' used and the whole police process was wrong and no conviction should have been achieved with it. However, Shields could have been there, who knows? Why would the police have let Sankey go and instead detain someone who apparantly wasn't even at the scene? Seems very strange to me. Every eye-witness described a fair haired guy, yet Sankey had dark hair?? How did Shields friend know that there were 'Germans out there' when referring to why Mr. Georgiev went outside the restauraunt in the first place? Was it a slip of the tongue that reveals that they were in fact present at the scene?

To be honest, nothing in the case adds up. You then have an eye witness from Liverpool now coming forward to say that it was probably Sankey and definately not Shields. Basically Shields needs a credible eye-witness that places him at his hotel at the time the attack took place. Unless he finds that, he's probably up sh!t creek.

It's amazing though that no DNA evidence was sought or used. No scientific process. The police didn't even see fit to put Sankey and Thompson in an ID parade, two people they arrested and knew to be at the scene. Ridiculous. Bulgaria seems like a joke of a country to me having seen the way their justice system and police force operate. It could happen to any holidaymaker out there. So I won't be going there for a while, not until they come into the 21st century anyway.

**Roadend** · 19/04/2006, 2:32 PM

That documentary did nothing to clear up this situation. It did not prove he was innocent no more than the Bulgarians proved him guilty.

**anto1208** · 19/04/2006, 3:06 PM

Originally Posted by 4tothefloor

Yeah it seems that Shilelds could be innocent having watched the documentary, he seems like a quiet lad, a bit innocent looking and sounding. But having said that, it's not as cut and dried as it seems. The docu left out a few glaring points in the case. I posted an article on this after it first happened, it's here.

I agree that the 'evidence' used and the whole police process was wrong and no conviction should have been achieved with it. However, Shields could have been there, who knows? Why would the police have let Sankey go and instead detain someone who apparantly wasn't even at the scene? Seems very strange to me. Every eye-witness described a fair haired guy, yet Sankey had dark hair?? How did Shields friend know that there were 'Germans out there' when referring to why Mr. Georgiev went outside the restauraunt in the first place? Was it a slip of the tongue that reveals that they were in fact present at the scene?

To be honest, nothing in the case adds up. You then have an eye witness from Liverpool now coming forward to say that it was probably Sankey and definately not Shields. Basically Shields needs a credible eye-witness that places him at his hotel at the time the attack took place. Unless he finds that, he's probably up sh!t creek.

It's amazing though that no DNA evidence was sought or used. No scientific process. The police didn't even see fit to put Sankey and Thompson in an ID parade, two people they arrested and knew to be at the scene. Ridiculous. Bulgaria seems like a joke of a country to me having seen the way their justice system and police force operate. It could happen to any holidaymaker out there. So I won't be going there for a while, not until they come into the 21st century anyway.

there are a few things in that article wilson and thompson are mates of shankey's not shields the 3 of them ( thom wilson and shankey ) have been brought to court by mersey side police to get football banning orders for causing trouble at home and abroad .shields has never been known to the police .
it also says it was a 8lb paving slab when in fact it was a 4 lb rock from a wall .
it says 2 of his mates where made to put on white shirts for an identity parade this didnt happen according to police records .it was just shields that was arrested .
of the 3 witnesses one said shields hit him 2 say he threw the rock .

that must discrepincy in the evidence should have had it thrown out .

**4tothefloor** · 19/04/2006, 3:07 PM

True. I felt sorry for the lad, my gut instinct is that he is innocent. But I thought the documentary may have been a bit biased as well. To be honest the case is a shambles, no one knows anything for certain. In which case Michael Shields should not be in prison. Beyond reasonable doubt and all that.....