Liverpool FC Forum

[Woollyback]

so where does graham sankey come in your reckoning then columbia?

[columbia]

so where does graham sankey come in your reckoning then columbia?

He could of done it. Although they were friends, maybe he's trying to protect his friend. The fact he has since admitted to it doesnt automatically mean its entirely truthfull in my opinion.

[Garymac]

And columbia, who the fu*k got killed??

[columbia]

And columbia, who the fu*k got killed??

sorry, it was a typing error.

[Judge]

disgraceful

[Mark 23]

ive wanted to say this for a while but didnt  because of the offence it may cause some people, but it! why is everyone so convinced he is inocent? What the recent itv documentry failed to tell us is that there were 3 witnesses all of whom said shields did it. why would they would lie? Ive read the website and to be honest i consider it to be quite bias? I think everyone has got a little carried away in trying to help the liverpool fan. Ive read many liverpool fan disscussions on here and not once has his innocence ever come into question.

Ive heard stories that he wasnt actually the main attacker but was one of the 3 people who attacked the man and if thats true then the lessening of his sentence is justified but thats all it should be. Even if his sentence wasnt cut, if he was one of the people that attacked the bloke then i dont realy see it as any loss to society should he serve a life sentence.

Pls dont attack me for daring to doubt his innocence. To be honest i am no expert on the subject and am quite interested to no why everyone is so convinced by his innocence because everything ive heard so far has left me unconvinced.

That programme and from what I have from heard from fans who were there with Michael Shields has left me convinced that he never did it.

But there are stories going round that he was actually there but it wasn't him doing the 'crazy paving'.

I believe he is innocent but many in Liverpool are skeptical. Don't have a go at me, this is just what I am hearing.

[The Red Baron]

ive wanted to say this for a while but didnt  because of the offence it may cause some people, but it! why is everyone so convinced he is inocent? What the recent itv documentry failed to tell us is that there were 3 witnesses all of whom said shields did it. why would they would lie? Ive read the website and to be honest i consider it to be quite bias? I think everyone has got a little carried away in trying to help the liverpool fan. Ive read many liverpool fan disscussions on here and not once has his innocence ever come into question.

Ive heard stories that he wasnt actually the main attacker but was one of the 3 people who attacked the man and if thats true then the lessening of his sentence is justified but thats all it should be. Even if his sentence wasnt cut, if he was one of the people that attacked the bloke then i dont realy see it as any loss to society should he serve a life sentence.

Pls dont attack me for daring to doubt his innocence. To be honest i am no expert on the subject and am quite interested to no why everyone is so convinced by his innocence because everything ive heard so far has left me unconvinced.

That programme and from what I have from heard from fans who were there with Michael Shields has left me convinced that he never did it.

But there are stories going round that he was actually there but it wasn't him doing the 'crazy paving'.

I believe he is innocent but many in Liverpool are skeptical. Don't have a go at me, this is just what I am hearing.

You must be mixing with some of those bitter blues lad,the only stories going round are coming from them.I have never once believed Michael was guilty and watching the programme just confirmed my belief.

Columbia if you dont know the facts dont post .Michael has no connection to Sankey other than staying in the same hotel.

[Ciggy]

I know for a fact Sankey did it infact Ill do Michael sentance meself if Michael did do it.
Mark you sound like a bitter blue, they talk all that sh.ite aswell just cause he's a red if he was a bluenose they'd say he was innocent.
Sankey is a feckin sh.ithouse you done the crime you should pay for it you piece of sh.it.

[GOAT]

i dont know, theres no proof that michael never did the crime is there? yeah the other guy admitted to doing it but that doesnt necessarily mean that he did it either.. everyone seems convinced sankey did it and michael is innocent but who knows...

[Mark 23]

I know for a fact Sankey did it infact Ill do Michael sentance meself if Michael did do it.
Mark you sound like a bitter blue, they talk all that sh.ite aswell just cause he's a red if he was a bluenose they'd say he was innocent.
Sankey is a feckin sh.ithouse you done the crime you should pay for it you piece of sh.it.

How do you figure that out, I said I don't believe he did it, and a friend of mine was over there in Bulgaria with Michael and he said he is innocent, so I believe him. 

If you read my post properly you will see that there is stories going around Liverpool, both Res and Blues saying this stuff.  I'm not saying they are true just that they are out there.

[stmichael]

you're history

[deejay-cgt]

He could of done it. Although they were friends, maybe he's trying to protect his friend. The fact he has since admitted to it doesnt automatically mean its entirely truthfull in my opinion.

they didnt even know of each other before it all came out over here so how they mates??

[LFC #1]

I know for a fact Sankey did it infact Ill do Michael sentance meself if Michael did do it.
Mark you sound like a bitter blue, they talk all that sh.ite aswell just cause he's a red if he was a bluenose they'd say he was innocent.
Sankey is a feckin sh.ithouse you done the crime you should pay for it you piece of sh.it.

What's the scumbag's story anyway? Is he in hiding or under protection? I'm sure there are plenty of scousers who'd happily do him in if they got the chance.

[MilitiaRusher]

Perhaps Sankey signed the confession under lots of pressure?

[LFC #1]

Perhaps Sankey signed the confession under lots of pressure?

there's only pressure if he did something. i.e. committed a crime. He wouldn't have signed it if he didn't do anything, he has nothing to gain from it.