Murderers at it again

[jimbo]

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.

They're hardly going to say to the club "Guilty as feck our lid. Lucky he only got 10 years!" The family are bound to tell the club he's innocent. I've not commented on this up until now, as I think some people are jumping on the old typical scouse bandwagons but I really think it was irresponsible for them to get involved on such a public level.

[Prufrock]

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.

Its a fair point blurred makes. Given what happened to Mr Norris and others before, and the willingness of the FA to take censure against those who express an opinion, i would say this, i doubt very much, in the same way those who uphold the absolute support of the ECtHR, that LFC would have gone ahead with this protest if they thought there wasnt a valid case.

For all the talk between folk like us, in the mass media, and in the street, this is an issue which divides folk, and whilst it is quite possible there are facts which noone in the western media or public knows about, and whilst noone would say definitively shields is innocent, all the evidence i have seen, suggests there is no way he could be convicted beyond reasonable doubt.

[blurred]

They're hardly going to say to the club "Guilty as feck our lid. Lucky he only got 10 years!" The family are bound to tell the club he's innocent. I've not commented on this up until now, as I think some people are jumping on the old typical scouse bandwagons but I really think it was irresponsible for them to get involved on such a public level.

I don't doubt that they would protest his innocence, but if you think Liverpool Football Club would take part in such a public backing of a cause such as this, you have to assume they have as full a working knowledge as possible of all the background to it before committing themselves so publicly in this way. They're not stupid.

[Athers]

If they're not stupid how come they can't run a ticket office?

[Montreal Wanderer]

They're hardly going to say to the club "Guilty as feck our lid. Lucky he only got 10 years!" The family are bound to tell the club he's innocent. I've not commented on this up until now, as I think some people are jumping on the old typical scouse bandwagons but I really think it was irresponsible for them to get involved on such a public level.

I don't doubt that they would protest his innocence, but if you think Liverpool Football Club would take part in such a public backing of a cause such as this, you have to assume they have as full a working knowledge as possible of all the background to it before committing themselves so publicly in this way. They're not stupid.

Yes, well you know about assumptions, blurred. Never underestimate man's ability to be stupid. I doubt Liverpool FC know more than the Straw man who has also been in constant touch with the family - indeed, I expect he knows more. In my view the legal process is not some kind of democratic execise, where if enough ignorant people say he is innocent he must be set free. The law has to be above that.

[blurred]

If they're not stupid how come they can't run a ticket office?

Because the club's legal people don't get involved in the ticket office. Well, when they do it's to give me lots of free tickets, which means they're definitely not daft in my eyes

[William the White]

They're hardly going to say to the club "Guilty as feck our lid. Lucky he only got 10 years!" The family are bound to tell the club he's innocent. I've not commented on this up until now, as I think some people are jumping on the old typical scouse bandwagons but I really think it was irresponsible for them to get involved on such a public level.

I don't doubt that they would protest his innocence, but if you think Liverpool Football Club would take part in such a public backing of a cause such as this, you have to assume they have as full a working knowledge as possible of all the background to it before committing themselves so publicly in this way. They're not stupid.

Yes, well you know about assumptions, blurred. Never underestimate man's ability to be stupid. I doubt Liverpool FC know more than the Straw man who has also been in constant touch with the family - indeed, I expect he knows more. In my view the legal process is not some kind of democratic execise, where if enough ignorant people say he is innocent he must be set free. The law has to be above that.

I agree. But why assume ignorance by those concerned and registering a protest? It may be because they have examined the issues that they take this position. Your 'doubt' about Liverpool FC is as big an ssumption as blurred's. And, however far above anything the law is - even if positively celestial - it, like all human processes remains fallible, or worse - crooked. Witness the frameups connected with the northern ireland cases that stained the UK legal system in the 80s and 90s. In this case, an innocent man may have spent 1000 plus days in captivity. I think that's likely. And i'm pleased the case is being pursued by MPs, councillors, family, friends, concerned people and his club. All have the right to do that. And if you don't use your rights, you might lose them...

[Prufrock]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog ... el-shields

[Montreal Wanderer]

They're hardly going to say to the club "Guilty as feck our lid. Lucky he only got 10 years!" The family are bound to tell the club he's innocent. I've not commented on this up until now, as I think some people are jumping on the old typical scouse bandwagons but I really think it was irresponsible for them to get involved on such a public level.

I don't doubt that they would protest his innocence, but if you think Liverpool Football Club would take part in such a public backing of a cause such as this, you have to assume they have as full a working knowledge as possible of all the background to it before committing themselves so publicly in this way. They're not stupid.

Yes, well you know about assumptions, blurred. Never underestimate man's ability to be stupid. I doubt Liverpool FC know more than the Straw man who has also been in constant touch with the family - indeed, I expect he knows more. In my view the legal process is not some kind of democratic execise, where if enough ignorant people say he is innocent he must be set free. The law has to be above that.

I agree. But why assume ignorance by those concerned and registering a protest? It may be because they have examined the issues that they take this position. Your 'doubt' about Liverpool FC is as big an ssumption as blurred's. And, however far above anything the law is - even if positively celestial - it, like all human processes remains fallible, or worse - crooked. Witness the frameups connected with the northern ireland cases that stained the UK legal system in the 80s and 90s. In this case, an innocent man may have spent 1000 plus days in captivity. I think that's likely. And i'm pleased the case is being pursued by MPs, councillors, family, friends, concerned people and his club. All have the right to do that. And if you don't use your rights, you might lose them...

I have no problem with the case being looked into and, as I said earlier, there are many miscarriages of justice. However, some of things asserted here and elsewhere do not bear scrutiny. "Shields was identified only in profile by someone who had been hit on the head by a concrete slab", "they put him in a white t-shirt alone in a line-up", or "someone else confessed". The fact appears that Shields was put in a line-up with other Liverpool supporters all yanked from their hotels and dressed in white t-shirts. Shields was identified repeatedly in the line up by a number of witnesses (one of whom said he had only seen the profile). The victim did not make his identification at this time but later. Regarding the confession, Sankey did not fit the description of the assailant (which is why he was released) and his version of the attack made it clear that he had probably attacked someone completely different that night. Given this it strikes me that there was not an absence of evidence for a conviction and that people's understanding of what took place is, on occasion, faulty. None of this means he was guilty of course.

[William the White]

They're hardly going to say to the club "Guilty as feck our lid. Lucky he only got 10 years!" The family are bound to tell the club he's innocent. I've not commented on this up until now, as I think some people are jumping on the old typical scouse bandwagons but I really think it was irresponsible for them to get involved on such a public level.

I don't doubt that they would protest his innocence, but if you think Liverpool Football Club would take part in such a public backing of a cause such as this, you have to assume they have as full a working knowledge as possible of all the background to it before committing themselves so publicly in this way. They're not stupid.

Yes, well you know about assumptions, blurred. Never underestimate man's ability to be stupid. I doubt Liverpool FC know more than the Straw man who has also been in constant touch with the family - indeed, I expect he knows more. In my view the legal process is not some kind of democratic execise, where if enough ignorant people say he is innocent he must be set free. The law has to be above that.

I agree. But why assume ignorance by those concerned and registering a protest? It may be because they have examined the issues that they take this position. Your 'doubt' about Liverpool FC is as big an ssumption as blurred's. And, however far above anything the law is - even if positively celestial - it, like all human processes remains fallible, or worse - crooked. Witness the frameups connected with the northern ireland cases that stained the UK legal system in the 80s and 90s. In this case, an innocent man may have spent 1000 plus days in captivity. I think that's likely. And i'm pleased the case is being pursued by MPs, councillors, family, friends, concerned people and his club. All have the right to do that. And if you don't use your rights, you might lose them...

I have no problem with the case being looked into and, as I said earlier, there are many miscarriages of justice. However, some of things asserted here and elsewhere do not bear scrutiny. "Shields was identified only in profile by someone who had been hit on the head by a concrete slab", "they put him in a white t-shirt alone in a line-up", or "someone else confessed". The fact appears that Shields was put in a line-up with other Liverpool supporters all yanked from their hotels and dressed in white t-shirts. Shields was identified repeatedly in the line up by a number of witnesses (one of whom said he had only seen the profile). The victim did not make his identification at this time but later. Regarding the confession, Sankey did not fit the description of the assailant (which is why he was released) and his version of the attack made it clear that he had probably attacked someone completely different that night. Given this it strikes me that there was not an absence of evidence for a conviction and that people's understanding of what took place is, on occasion, faulty. None of this means he was guilty of course.

Monty, I really don't have a quarrel with you, but pretty much every one of those assertions are disputed... And a number of people - me among them - have the belief that, at the very least, the actions of the bulgarian police in the arrest, id and witness statement process render the conviction unsafe.

Shall we leave it at that?

I feel desperately sorry for shields, and just as sorry for the bulgarian waiter who has been affected for the rest of his life by an attack by a liverpool supporter. it would certainly do liverpool FC no harm to make some kind of payment, or start a fund for this innocent victim of a terrible violent crime.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't doubt that they would protest his innocence, but if you think Liverpool Football Club would take part in such a public backing of a cause such as this, you have to assume they have as full a working knowledge as possible of all the background to it before committing themselves so publicly in this way. They're not stupid.

Yes, well you know about assumptions, blurred. Never underestimate man's ability to be stupid. I doubt Liverpool FC know more than the Straw man who has also been in constant touch with the family - indeed, I expect he knows more. In my view the legal process is not some kind of democratic execise, where if enough ignorant people say he is innocent he must be set free. The law has to be above that.

I agree. But why assume ignorance by those concerned and registering a protest? It may be because they have examined the issues that they take this position. Your 'doubt' about Liverpool FC is as big an ssumption as blurred's. And, however far above anything the law is - even if positively celestial - it, like all human processes remains fallible, or worse - crooked. Witness the frameups connected with the northern ireland cases that stained the UK legal system in the 80s and 90s. In this case, an innocent man may have spent 1000 plus days in captivity. I think that's likely. And i'm pleased the case is being pursued by MPs, councillors, family, friends, concerned people and his club. All have the right to do that. And if you don't use your rights, you might lose them...

I have no problem with the case being looked into and, as I said earlier, there are many miscarriages of justice. However, some of things asserted here and elsewhere do not bear scrutiny. "Shields was identified only in profile by someone who had been hit on the head by a concrete slab", "they put him in a white t-shirt alone in a line-up", or "someone else confessed". The fact appears that Shields was put in a line-up with other Liverpool supporters all yanked from their hotels and dressed in white t-shirts. Shields was identified repeatedly in the line up by a number of witnesses (one of whom said he had only seen the profile). The victim did not make his identification at this time but later. Regarding the confession, Sankey did not fit the description of the assailant (which is why he was released) and his version of the attack made it clear that he had probably attacked someone completely different that night. Given this it strikes me that there was not an absence of evidence for a conviction and that people's understanding of what took place is, on occasion, faulty. None of this means he was guilty of course.

Monty, I really don't have a quarrel with you, but pretty much every one of those assertions are disputed... And a number of people - me among them - have the belief that, at the very least, the actions of the bulgarian police in the arrest, id and witness statement process render the conviction unsafe.

Shall we leave it at that?

I feel desperately sorry for shields, and just as sorry for the bulgarian waiter who has been affected for the rest of his life by an attack by a liverpool supporter. it would certainly do liverpool FC no harm to make some kind of payment, or start a fund for this innocent victim of a terrible violent crime.

Nor I with you, William - I was only questioning the certainty on both sides that was being displayed. Since it is generally agreed that a Liverpool supporter made the attack, your idea of some compensation from the club to the waiter (Bulgarian not Spanish) makes excellent sense - it would show concern for one real victim and make the release of another (possible) victim all the more palatable to the world. Has Liverpool FC ever considered this? We should demand justice for all, not just for one. Clearly the waiter will suffer the rest of his life. Hopefully Shields, innocent or guilty will get his life back together one day.