FA asks Liverpool to explain show of support for convicted criminal

[Elvoz]

I think perhaps I have given the impression that Michael Shields is guilty which was not my intention. What I am saying is that although I would personally sign and support a judicial review it would not be from a position of supporting this guy but instead intending justice be served.

As far as I am concerned, from reading many many articles and watching the documentary, this is in no way a cut and dry case of injustice and while it is that way we should not be supporting a potential murderer. "Free Michael Shields" is a statement of his presumed innocence whatever way you look at it.

there is more proof/ questionable evidence he didnt do it mate
thats the problem

[PTP]

were police found not guilty here too ?
does that make it as fredo thinks "proof"

but i honestly see your point mate and well put - and in no way have i said your not a proper fan if you dont support the campaign
its a difficult one sure -but soem people are just ****in ignorant to "justice" and how it is seen in some countries

i think it was dww that made a good point in a post above that sums it up for me

if it was a "Justice for Michael Shields", or a "Fair Trial for Michael Shields" campaing then maybe people might feel more comfortable backing the campaign or getting involved

Maybe, the Free Him Now, comes across as too blunt and strong, and almost force fed to some people......thats maybe why many people are reluctanct to get fully behind it - in fact i'm sure if you look at the people like myself who are in the sort of grey area in the middle - i don't strongly agree or disagree if you know what I mean, then people might be reluctant to get behind a very "strong" "free him now" campaign- why? as i said in my first post, most people might be reluctanct to fully back the campaign just in case there was a 1% chance he was invloved.

But - as i said above, if it was give michael a fair trial campaign, many people would sit up and take notice and say "hmmm, do you know what, yeah he does deserve a proper and fair trial" and i suspect it would get more backing.

I'm not disputing any of the facts - i have discussed this with a senior policeman in merseyside police who I know very well, and who has reviewed the case, and the whole set up that led to michael shields being imprisoned is shocking.

[Elvoz]

i think it was dww that made a good point in a post above that sums it up for me

if it was a "Justice for Michael Shields", or a "Fair Trial for Michael Shields" campaing then maybe people might feel more comfortable backing the campaign or getting involved

Maybe, the Free Him Now, comes across as too blunt and strong, and almost force fed to some people......thats maybe why many people are reluctanct to get fully behind it - in fact i'm sure if you look at the people like myself who are in the sort of grey area in the middle - i don't strongly agree or disagree if you know what I mean, then people might be reluctant to get behind a very "strong" "free him now" campaign- why? as i said in my first post, most people might be reluctanct to fully back the campaign just in case there was a 1% chance he was invloved.

But - as i said above, if it was give michael a fair trial campaign, many people would sit up and take notice and say "hmmm, do you know what, yeah he does deserve a proper and fair trial" and i suspect it would get more backing.

I'm not disputing any of the facts - i have discussed this with a senior policeman in merseyside police who I know very well, and who has reviewed the case, and the whole set up that led to michael shields being imprisoned is shocking.

you and your sources

[PTP]

I think perhaps I have given the impression that Michael Shields is guilty which was not my intention. What I am saying is that although I would personally sign and support a judicial review it would not be from a position of supporting this guy but instead intending justice be served.

As far as I am concerned, from reading many many articles and watching the documentary, this is in no way a cut and dry case of injustice and while it is that way we should not be supporting a potential murderer. "Free Michael Shields" is a statement of his presumed innocence whatever way you look at it.

thats more or less the point i am trying to make but have kinda rambled on a bit with mine

Yes i do believe, the whole trial and set up of michael shields was shocking.
but as u say the "free michael shields" statement is such a strong stance for say the club to take just in case there is a slight chance he was involved.

I personally would feel a lot more comfortably supporting him to get a fair and open trial that exposed all the facts in the case then an out and out free him now

[PTP]

you and your sources

[Chrono]

there is more proof/ questionable evidence he didnt do it mate
thats the problem

Wouldn't be the first time a guilty man had plenty of evidence to suggest he was not mate but again, I agree on a review.

I will never feel that a football stadium is where support for this is the right place though. I wasn't at this game but wouldn't be the first time I have felt uncomfortable in a mosiac I wasn't very sure how I felt about.

[Darkon]

i think it was dww that made a good point in a post above that sums it up for me

if it was a "Justice for Michael Shields", or a "Fair Trial for Michael Shields" campaing then maybe people might feel more comfortable backing the campaign or getting involved

Maybe, the Free Him Now, comes across as too blunt and strong, and almost force fed to some people......thats maybe why many people are reluctanct to get fully behind it - in fact i'm sure if you look at the people like myself who are in the sort of grey area in the middle - i don't strongly agree or disagree if you know what I mean, then people might be reluctant to get behind a very "strong" "free him now" campaign- why? as i said in my first post, most people might be reluctanct to fully back the campaign just in case there was a 1% chance he was invloved.

But - as i said above, if it was give michael a fair trial campaign, many people would sit up and take notice and say "hmmm, do you know what, yeah he does deserve a proper and fair trial" and i suspect it would get more backing.

I'm not disputing any of the facts - i have discussed this with a senior policeman in merseyside police who I know very well, and who has reviewed the case, and the whole set up that led to michael shields being imprisoned is shocking.

That sums up some of my concerns quite well

I think we all can agree that he deserves a fair and free trial and if a judicial review could help that then I would happily support that.

But the whole "free him" thing makes me uneasy when a democratic constitional state with a free and independent court system that by all means are of EU-standards, have found enough evidence to convict him.

I just find it peculiar that some people are so certain that he is innocent and wan't him free, when they only know the evidence presented in the newspapers and on the website. Something must have made the courts make the verdict they have and that is the other side of the coin I am missing.

The guy who confessed in the UK, would he not be subject to be send to Bulgaria and be tried, if that is deemed credible? Or at least get his punishement in the UK?

[Red Chilli]

Personally I don't think THE CLUB should get involved.

I have no problem with the fans getting involved in fact I applaud it and heartily support it.
Unfortunately, the club should aim to keep out of the controversy IMO.

[-V-]

I'll be honest. I was in the Kop and i felt very uncomfortable about it. The Kop was very strongly behind Michael Shields but i have never been convinced that he is innocent. I didnt take part in the demonstration because im not convinced of his innocence one little bit

[Elvoz]

Wouldn't be the first time a guilty man had plenty of evidence to suggest he was not mate but again, I agree on a review.

I will never feel that a football stadium is where support for this is the right place though. I wasn't at this game but wouldn't be the first time I have felt uncomfortable in a mosiac I wasn't very sure how I felt about.

do go on

[Guest]

Personally I don't think THE CLUB should get involved.

I have no problem with the fans getting involved in fact I applaud it and heartily support it.
Unfortunately, the club should aim to keep out of the controversy IMO.

I'll be honest. I was in the Kop and i felt very uncomfortable about it. The Kop was very strongly behind Michael Shields but i have never been convinced that he is innocent. I didnt take part in the demonstration because im not convinced of his innocence one little bit

But obviously when the fans do get involved and in numbers, it puts pressure back onto the club to support it. I have been swayed into believing he was not guilty when I read the initial articles just after Istanbul. I felt for the guy. But after reading more of it I can safely say that nothing is sure. It's certainly dividing opinions.

[Chrono]

do go on

I can't remember off the top of my head. Was there a previous one for Michael Shields? Could have been that thinking about it.

[Red Chilli]

But obviously when the fans do get involved and in numbers, it puts pressure back onto the club to support it. I have been swayed into believing he was not guilty when I read the initial articles just after Istanbul. I felt for the guy. But after reading more of it I can safely say that nothing is sure. It's certainly dividing opinions.

I don't think the club show bow to that pressure. The most the club should allow is for protests to take place in the ground by the fans. That's as far as it should go. There shouldn't be any representatives of LFC getting involved in this controversy.
They can do it in their free time, but not when representing LFC.
I'm proud that our fans are so supportive of causes like this. If he's guilty then let it be proven in court after a judicial review. But in the eyes of the fans and a lot of other people, he is innocent until proven guilty and there are a lot of question marks against the so-called proof that has been put forward.

[calvoboy]

The document at this link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdo...r486-08_en.pdf

Should be required reading for those who (like I did originally) doubt Michael's innocence. The case against Sankey seems very strong looking at the evidence in there. Dismiss it as one-sided if you like, but there are too many inconsistencies in the "Shields did it" theory, and very few in the "Sankey did it" theory according to the evidence presented in this legal submission.

It's also useful in setting out in a completely unbiased manner exactly what happened on the night in question, as very few of the media reports (if any) have ever done this.

Someone also mentioned Fair Trials Abroad, and they made the following comments at the time of the original conviction:

Michael Shields - Bulgaria
September 05
Michael Shields, an 18 years old football fan from Liverpool, travelled to Turkey to watch the Champions League final in May 2005. Michael and his friends travelled on a coach package including a stopover in Bulgaria on the way back.

On 30 May 2005 at 5am, a local man was attacked outside a café in Bulgaria by an English football fan, suffering a fractured skull.

Some 3 hours later, local police arrived at Michael's hotel and arrested several English guests. They were all taken to the local police station. Police later returned for Michael. Michael says that he was driven past the café so that the staff could have a good look at him. He was then made to participate in an identification parade.

Whilst in custody, Michael applied for bail but without success. His trial, which commenced on the 21 July 2005, lasted for 3 days. He was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for attempted murder.

Another football fan similar in appearance to Michael and staying at the same hotel as him, gave a statement confessing to the murder. This statement was disregarded.

Fair Trial Issues
FTA sent an observer to the trial, who noted the following:

The identification evidence was seriously flawed. The defence objected to the way it was conducted and even then, only one of the witnesses was able to positively identify Michael. Others witnesses later pointed Michael out at court and this was also taken to be positive identification.
There were some extraordinary admissions of evidence by the trial judge, e.g. a letter from the prison governor expressing his opinion that a pre-trial haircut request had been made by the defendant for the sole purpose of avoiding recognition. This was admitted into evidence without calling the governor to give evidence.
It was noted that none of the points raised by the defence with regards to evidence were considered; on the other hand, all suggestions by the prosecution were followed.
There was no forensic evidence. In particular, there was no DNA evidence to link Michael to the large rock that had been used in the attack.
The evidence given by café staff regarding the attack conflicted with other eyewitnesses’.
Michael's two roommates, the Holiday Rep from the hotel and two other men have stated that Michael was not at the scene of the incident. However, this evidence was rejected along with evidence that Michael was asleep in his hotel room at the time of the incident.
There is no CCTV of Michael’s movements in the hotel and the electronic swipe records were also not available. Excuses have been given but in the absence of DNA evidence, this was the only reliable and objective evidence as to Michael’s whereabouts.
Michael has appealed and this is likely to be heard on 14 October 2005. His appeal to have the sentence reduced failed on 9 November 2005

I was sceptical at the time, and worried whether we were being asked to support him just because he's a fellow red. Most of my sympathies were also with the guy who was attacked too. But the more you read into the case, the more convincing it is that Michael has suffered a serious miscarriage of justice.

[Shanks]

I think the argument needs to move away from whether people think he is guilty or not, to whether the club should actually be involved to the extent of what happened the other night.

Having the players wear Michael Shields t-shirts was totally wrong IMO.