Jailed football supporter refused retrial

#1
The Liverpool football supporter jailed in Bulgaria for assaulting a barman has been refused a retrial. However, the court very reasonably reduced his sentence from 15 years to 10 years and a £71,000 fine.

Full storyBBC News

I'll bet the Bulgarians don't forget to deport him afterwards, either!
 
#2
Scousers are perpetual victims; it's never their fault. I think the young hoodlum should think himself lucky getting 10 yrs for caving someone's head in with a paving slab.
 
#3
There was always some doubt about whether he actually committed the offence.

You hear some lies like voices in my head made me do it or it was an accident as the concrete just jumped into my hands but that he was in bed is a new one on me.

The Bulgarians got A man but whether it was the RIGHT man is still inconclusive. I'm sure he will be deported but at least he can say "Fcuk you" in fluent Bulgarian when he leaves.
 
#4
Was this not the case that was at best questionable in it's motivation (ie to see a foreigner made an example of?)

I'm sure i recall the fact that a local man admited attacking the barman with the slab, but the local polcia took no action and instead ploughed on with charging their 'foriegn trophy'???

or am i imagining this? :?

Edited to say that i was wrong, it was not a local, it was another scouser

A confession made in the UK by another Liverpool man, Graham Sankey, was not accepted by the Bulgarian courts.
My appologies to all bulgarians and the police :oops:
 
#5
Mistersoft. Yes, they got A man, and his jury trial found that he was the RIGHT man. He was convicted in a court. It's rather patronising to think that the Bulgarians are incapable of administering fair justice. Just become some other scouser said that he'd done it but then wouldn't fly to Bulgaria to prove it, doesn't mean that some miscarriage of justice has taken place.
 
#6
The miscarriage of justice is that Mr Sankey wasn't deported to Bulgaria to take the punishment for HIS crime.
 
#7
flipflop said:
Mistersoft. Yes, they got A man, and his jury trial found that he was the RIGHT man. He was convicted in a court. It's rather patronising to think that the Bulgarians are incapable of administering fair justice. Just become some other scouser said that he'd done it but then wouldn't fly to Bulgaria to prove it, doesn't mean that some miscarriage of justice has taken place.
The jury found him guilty on the evidence presented to them by the police. There was and still is some doubt over his guilt. I am not the president of the League of Hard Done By Scousers but just somebody who tries to present the facts as I see them and read them.

I am entitled to an opinion just as you are but if our opinions differ then can't we just agree to disagree but I'll think you'll find that there other such as myself who have grave doubts over the safety of his conviction.
 
#8
Sorry Mistersoft, I didn't mean to come across as having a go, but I haven't heard any substantial evidence that suggests he didn't do it; only a jury that said he did. I'd be interested to hear it.
 
#9
Eh, eh, eh. Calm down. He didn't do it - I did!
 
#10
Im with mistersoft on this one, the "guilty" party doesn't fully match the witness description, he was found some distance from the scene of the crime. In addition as has already been said some one else confessed to the crime.

My main concern would be that the judge dismissed the confession without presenting it to the court, i for one am not convinved of his guilt, im sure that innocent people have been found guilty before, with much more evidence agaisnt them.
 
#11
flipflop said:
Sorry Mistersoft, I didn't mean to come across as having a go, but I haven't heard any substantial evidence that suggests he didn't do it; only a jury that said he did. I'd be interested to hear it.
No probs, two have already mentioned the Mr Sankey who unless he was the official scouse fruitcake would seem to have no reason for owning up to the crime. Also there was more than a hint of local participation which the police ignored.

He might be a scrote, I don't know but there is a chance he's an innocent scrote and even scousers deserve a fair chance not that I have anything against scousers before the flak starts. It's a dangerous game, not the football but supporting it and flying across Europe to test drive a fledgling legal system is not my idea of fun but some are willing to do this. Personally I prefer ice in my drink, concrete leaves this gritty residue.
 
#12
Ex_ex said:
mistersoft said:
There was always some doubt about whether he actually committed the offence.

You hear some lies like voices in my head made me do it or it was an accident as the concrete just jumped into my hands but that he was in bed is a new one on me.

The Bulgarians got A man but whether it was the RIGHT man is still inconclusive. I'm sure he will be deported but at least he can say "Fcuk you" in fluent Bulgarian when he leaves.
Don't you mean "Fcuk me" :wink:
But I don't know you
 
#13
This was covered on the Tonight Programme with Trevor McDonut a couple of weeks ago and they came out with some quite damning facts surrounding the whole case. It would appear that on the evidence presented the investigation was a farce. He should be entitled to a re-trial at least.
 
#14
BBC Radio 4 News reported an hour ago that doubt surrounds the confession of the second creature.

I suspect the Bulgarians have plenty to hold him on:

- Possession of an irritating accent with intent to speak
- Possession of an offensive family
- Failure to produce evidence of a brain cell when required to do so by a police officer
 
#15
Another scouser did own up to this, however he was ID'd as the attcker by the victim who was certain it was him and didn't recognise the confessor.

I can't answer who is to blame but that is pretty conclusive unless you can conjure up a conspicy theory
 
#16
ViroBono said:
BBC Radio 4 News reported an hour ago that doubt surrounds the confession of the second creature.

I suspect the Bulgarians have plenty to hold him on:

- Possession of an irritating accent with intent to speak
- Possession of an offensive family
- Failure to produce evidence of a brain cell when required to do so by a police officer
The poor feller's innocent in my opinion.

If this is your brand of levity, it's severely misplaced. You've fallen into the trap of criticising somebody you don't know by employing the tired old vicarious stereotype. You possess no knowledge of this individual's character whatsoever. Whereas I can criticise you because I've seen some of the nonsense masquerading as informed comment that you regularly post up here.
 
#17
frenchperson said:
ViroBono said:
BBC Radio 4 News reported an hour ago that doubt surrounds the confession of the second creature.

I suspect the Bulgarians have plenty to hold him on:

- Possession of an irritating accent with intent to speak
- Possession of an offensive family
- Failure to produce evidence of a brain cell when required to do so by a police officer
The poor feller's innocent in my opinion.

If this is your brand of levity, it's severely misplaced. You've fallen into the trap of criticising somebody you don't know by employing the tired old vicarious stereotype. You possess no knowledge of this individual's character whatsoever. Whereas I can criticise you because I've seen some of the nonsense masquerading as informed comment that you regularly post up here.
Whoops! Is that a handbag I see before me?

Lighten up my good friend. It's just a bit of banter - and not a bad effort at that!
 
#18
frenchperson said:
ViroBono said:
BBC Radio 4 News reported an hour ago that doubt surrounds the confession of the second creature.

I suspect the Bulgarians have plenty to hold him on:

- Possession of an irritating accent with intent to speak
- Possession of an offensive family
- Failure to produce evidence of a brain cell when required to do so by a police officer
The poor feller's innocent in my opinion.

If this is your brand of levity, it's severely misplaced. You've fallen into the trap of criticising somebody you don't know by employing the tired old vicarious stereotype. You possess no knowledge of this individual's character whatsoever. Whereas I can criticise you because I've seen some of the nonsense masquerading as informed comment that you regularly post up here.
It's called dark humour, something that the forces rely on in times of need.
 
#19
Private_Pike said:
The miscarriage of justice is that Mr Sankey wasn't deported to Bulgaria to take the punishment for HIS crime.
Was listening to some background chit chat on radio whatever and heard that the 'Confession' of Mr Sankey was more than a tad on the dodgy side.

Will try and find some info for you all.

CC_TA
 
#20
frenchperson said:
The poor feller's innocent in my opinion.

If this is your brand of levity, it's severely misplaced. You've fallen into the trap of criticising somebody you don't know by employing the tired old vicarious stereotype. You possess no knowledge of this individual's character whatsoever. Whereas I can criticise you because I've seen some of the nonsense masquerading as informed comment that you regularly post up here.
I doubt that you are any better informed about this case than I or any other member here. Do you have any hard evidence to support your contention that this wretch is innocent, or is this yet another example of the 'holier than thou' attitude you inflict upon us so often?

You are quite right, though, that I possess no knowledge of this creature's character; nor, I suspect, do you.

As for 'nonsense masquerading as informed comment', I shall take that as a compliment from the master of such posts.

I fear you have fallen into the trap of criticising me, whom you don't know, by stereotyping me in the same way you do everyone who disagrees with you (i.e. everyone else on ARRSE).

So far (as so often), your only contribution to the discussion is ad hominem, and it's tired and boring.
 

Latest Threads

Top