Murderers at it again

[Verbal]

I'd be on the fence too. I agree with Mummy the other confession seems to be a load of rubbish. The police investigation seems to have been ridiculous though. At least by certain accounts. I'd certainly say there is enough evidence either way to be unsure beyond reasonable doubt.

There is no doubt I am doubtful...ney heard that one before

though back to the topic at hand...I would probably be similar...the confession is bollocks, though I'm still unconvinced that the victim, who had sustained severe head trauma, could pick out and I.D Shields from just a profile shot. 50/50.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't know enough to comment. Whatever we may think of Bulgarian justice and appeals the European court felt he had a fair trial. I find it odd that the Home Secretary does not appear to know what his authority is and needs a court to decide. Possibly he does not wish to release Shields because he feels he was guilty. I did understand that he AND two friends were dressed it T-shirts and put in the lineup - not just him. he was identified by several witnesses.

[Prufrock]

Law students out there, what does the fact the ECtHR upheld the conviction mean? Does it mean they thought he was actually guilty, or that Bulgarian law hadn't been controvened. Each country in the EU has their own laws, and surely the ECtHR must respect that. Surely that ruling only means that Shields was treated in the same way as any normal Bulgarian would be? Now im all for 'when in Rome' and following Bulgarian laws and customs, but this is a British man, who was there on his way to a football match. Now i have no problem with him facing the Bulgarian courts, in Bulgarian law, but if i was him i would expect a fair hearing and a fair collection of evidence. As i said i dont know whether he is guilty or not, but it does seem that there is sufficient doubt, and witness statements that he was given a fair hearing. For instance i would be very sceptical of evidence from a man with brain damage, who had been hit over the head with a paving slab who claims he is sure of a positive identification from a profile picture. On the other hand Shields hasnt helped his case, for instance calling a 'random witness' who he 'didnt know' who turned out to be his cousin. And whilst it does seem odd how many people definately saw him sleeping, that has not been proven untrue. All in all in a similar situation i would expect the British government to ensure i was given a fair trial, as i would expect the bulgarian government to do here if the roles were reversed. Definately on the side of allowing a guilty man to walk free rather than run the risk of an innocent man being jailed. Hence the 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Law students out there, what does the fact the ECtHR upheld the conviction mean? Does it mean they thought he was actually guilty, or that Bulgarian law hadn't been controvened.

Ok, for the sake of accuracy....

The ECtHR didn't really 'uphold the conviction'. A panel of three judges examined the case documents and decided to reject Shields' application for an appeal.

The finding wasn't that they thought Shields was guilty, or that Bulgarian law hadn't been contravened, rather that Shields' right to a fair trial, as contained in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had not been infringed.

[Prufrock]

Law students out there, what does the fact the ECtHR upheld the conviction mean? Does it mean they thought he was actually guilty, or that Bulgarian law hadn't been controvened.

Ok, for the sake of accuracy....

The ECtHR didn't really 'uphold the conviction'. A panel of three judges examined the case documents and decided to reject Shields' application for an appeal.

The finding wasn't that they thought Shields was guilty, or that Bulgarian law hadn't been contravened, rather that Shields' right to a fair trial, as contained in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had not been infringed.

Fair enough, but the thing i don't get, considering, as far as i could find, this is Art.6

Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed 1. innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

a. to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
c. to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
d. to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
e. to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Now technically none of the reasons the trial has been questioned controvene that. There is no specific mention of identity parades, or police procedure. I have highlighted a point which must surely be controversial. Does that mean beyond reasonable doubt? It doenst specifically say. But if you say 'probably did it' as in English Civil cases, surely that presumes neither innocence nor guilt? Given the way it has been reported, i find it very difficult a court would be able to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The number of witness statements corroborating his alibi that have not been disproven mean i personally feel he hasn't had a fair trial, but there is very little according to the rules of the ECtHR that you could use to question it. The contentious issue for me is whether it is under the remit of our government to use diplomatic mean to try to ensure Shields gets what would be considered a fair trial here. If he had emigrated to Bulgaria I would say no. The fact he was passing through makes me doubtful.

As for critisism of Liverpool FC for their conduct, and in particular the comparision with David Norris, in my mind it just is not valid. For a start Norris made a ridiculously insensitive gesture towards a man who pleaded guilty. Now i understand he wants to support his friend, but as someone in the public eye, the football pitch is certainly not the place to do it.

As for Liverpool, again i don't see the problem, if the club, its officials and players beleive Shields is innocent, then what right do the FA have to condemn them. Its called free speech.

[TANGODANCER]

" a man with brain damage, who had been hit over the head with a paving slab"

Might be worth keeping him in the equation. I'm making no comments on who did what and who's guilty ot innocent because I just don't know. The paving slab didn't just jump up and hit him, did it?

[blurred]

" a man with brain damage, who had been hit over the head with a paving slab"

Might be worth keeping him in the equation. I'm making no comments on who did what and who's guilty ot innocent because I just don't know. The paving slab didn't just jump up and hit him, did it?

No, it didn't. But his judgement may be somewhat impaired having had a paving slab chucked on his head, and so his testimony should be treated somewhat carefully, which is the point that was being made.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

" a man with brain damage, who had been hit over the head with a paving slab"

Might be worth keeping him in the equation. I'm making no comments on who did what and who's guilty ot innocent because I just don't know. The paving slab didn't just jump up and hit him, did it?

No, it didn't. But his judgement may be somewhat impaired having had a paving slab chucked on his head, and so his testimony should be treated somewhat carefully, which is the point that was being made.

Was the medical evidence that he would be unable to remember the incident reliably?

[blurred]

Was the medical evidence that he would be unable to remember the incident reliably?

I don't know. I know that as a juror, though, I would be sceptical of a positive identification from someone who only saw a profile view of someone, at night, in brief instant, and who had subsequently suffered brain damage resulting from a crushing blow to the skull. But then maybe I'm just a cynic.

[CAPSLOCK]

Some interesting debate

My original point though was more on the involvement of Liverpool FC in all this

[TANGODANCER]

Some interesting debate

My original point though was more on the involvement of Liverpool FC in all this

That will be pressure from the fans. It's quite true that if you kick a Scouser the whole city limps. Probably the most parochial city in the world. Scousers are a total race-apart and trying to understand them is a futile excercise. There are quite a lot of decent folk there but, as I said, parochial ain't the word.

[Tombwfc]

As for Liverpool, again i don't see the problem, if the club, its officials and players beleive Shields is innocent, then what right do the FA have to condemn them. Its called free speech.

Does Norris not have a right to free speech?

On what evidence are the Liverpool players (making the huge assumption that they are all well versed in the law and the details of this case) deciding he's innocent?

Really, they've not a fecking clue either way (like most of us), and so have presumed his innocence basically on the strength of him being a Liverpool fan.

[Prufrock]

As for Liverpool, again i don't see the problem, if the club, its officials and players beleive Shields is innocent, then what right do the FA have to condemn them. Its called free speech.

Does Norris not have a right to free speech?

On what evidence are the Liverpool players (making the huge assumption that they are all well versed in the law and the details of this case) deciding he's innocent?

Really, they've not a fecking clue either way (like most of us), and so have presumed his innocence basically on the strength of him being a Liverpool fan.

Well he does obviously. I would suggest it is extremely ill advised however to show support for someone who has pleaded guilty to killing two small children. Monumentally stupid in fact, but i do agree I'm not sure it is the FA's place to act. As for Liverpool, yes they have a reputation for group mourning, and being a city obsessed with grief. But that doesnt automatically mean this case isn't valid, if Shields had been from anywhere else, i think the tone of this thread would be different.

[blurred]

if Shields had been from anywhere else, i think the tone of this thread would be different.

Understatement

[CrazyHorse]

if Shields had been from anywhere else, i think the tone of this thread would be different.

Understatement

Have you two been on the piss all day or something? Get a grip the pair of you.

[Verbal]

To be fair horsey I agree with prufrock.

[fatshaft]

if Shields had been from anywhere else, i think the tone of this thread would be different.

Understatement

Then perhaps the citizens of Liverpool should stop crying wolf?

[Montreal Wanderer]

To be fair horsey I agree with prufrock.

To me it doesn't matter where Shields is from and I have no dislike for Liverpool FC or Liverpudlians. With any conviction there is always a possibility of a miscarriage of justice and there will always be people who proclaim an individual's innocence. This doesn't mean we let everyone out of jail unless they have actually confessed. We rely on institutions such as the European Court or the Home Office to make the right decisions in the best interest of society. We hope that they know more about the actual issues than we do (possibly a vain hope) but everyone who has proclaimed his innocence (or guilt) on here does not know all the details. However, I would agree that anyone who thinks Shields should be kept in prison simply because he was a fan of LFC is stupid and his/her opinion should be ignored. However, I have not really seen that argument made here (perhaps I missed it in all the rhetoric).

[TANGODANCER]

There can't really be any argument as to innocent/guilty Monty as none of us were there, know the facts or the people involved.The whole point is that Liverpool as a club can't know any more than us and shouldn't have made such a sweeping gesture, to say the least. None of this means I have any drum to bang as I know nothing of the whole thing except what I've read in the papers. Best way is to stay out of it.

[blurred]

The whole point is that Liverpool as a club can't know any more than us and shouldn't have made such a sweeping gesture, to say the least.

Apart from the club being in constant contact with the family, hence arranging this thing in the first place, and thus being party to all the legal information behind the scenes that they could wish for?

I doubt the club have done this lightly, risking FA censure, if the upper echelons did not believe in his innocence, or at least his right to be freed now back in the UK, without knowing more than the average man on the street like you or me.