VC

Do you really need the difference explaining to you?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

redman - you were cherry picking as you've made no comment re: the report that portray Suraez evidence as less than transparent. You're looking for ways to defend him within it & are in no way being objective reading it.

comment by red_man23 (U1669)
posted 8 minutes ago
VC

Do you really need the difference explaining to you?

.....................

Yes, because I can't see how you are being any different to the rest of your posters on here.

Please explain to me how you are.

Tobes

I accept that Suarez's evidence and testimony was unreliable, and less than transparent. The bone of contention I have is that the panel highlighted this, and used it as a point of reaching the verdict. But they also ignored the unreliability, and in-consistency of aspects of Evra's testimony, and evidence.

They also gave Evra an advantage of viewing video to jog his memory. Something they didn't afford Suarez. Even though Evra viewed video his testimony didn't tally with the version of events he gave straight after the event.

VC

I haven't maintained, or claimed that Suarez is innocent, or guilty. I've highlighted the in-consistencies in the procedure The FA used when bringing this in front of the panel.

That's the distinction between what I have been saying, and what my fellow Liverpool fans have been saying.

But all that's irrelevant. My comments are my personal opinion, they may, or may not, be the same as my fellow fans. I am responsible for my comments and opinions. It's not up to my fellow fans, on here, to answer, justify, or qualify anything I say.

I'm back from lunch now so Tobe will be away for a while

But they also ignored the unreliability, and in-consistency of aspects of Evra's testimony, and evidence.

.....................

They did not ignore it because it was not inconsistant.

I think this is something you ostriches have kept telling yourself to make it true.

This is from the report. I have posted it at least five times on this thread yet you continue to ignore it.

....................

The report concludes: "Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way.

"It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between them.

........................

Try and understand this. Evra was a credible witness, Suarez was not.

Open those eyes and you will finally see some daylight.

VC

Right so there were consistencies when Evra claimed he was called a n****r by Suarez?

Or maybe the amount of times the abuse took place was consistent. Was it 10+, 7, or 5?

Or perhaps Evra wasn;t telling a bare-face lie when he testified that he hates the word n****r and never uses it.

Or perhaps the way both players gave statements was consistent. Perhaps both players were allowed to view a video of the incident, and then recall their version of events?

The quote you've included is subjective. Since when was Suarez on trial for the way he gave his evidence? When was a persons composure integral to whether they are guilty or innocent?

Of course Evra was more composed. His reputation wasn't being put under scrutiny. He wasn't the accused.

I'll go back to eye-witness testimony. This states that an eye-witness, to an event, is more likely to recall accurately details of the event soon after it has occurred. This is because it's still fresh in the memory and corruption of the memory hasn't taken place yet. The further down the line you go the more likely that recall is affected. For example in this case, when Evra was more likely to remember the event he claimed he had been called a n****r. He also claimed that he had been abused 10+ times (on Canal+). Later on he changed this story, in both what he was called and the amount of times the abuse took place. I think an element of corruption has taken place here. A person is also likely to 'fill in' elements of the event that they can;t remember, with aspects that appear to make sense. The person then convinces them-self that this version of events must be what happened. Again I believe this is what has happened.

There's no 'degrees' of racism, he either racially abused the man or he didn't.

Most have concluded that he did & therefore irrespective of whether it was 2, 5, 7 or 9 times, he was guilty.

He admitted referring to the mans colour himself ffs.

If you want to maintain his innocence then carry on, but you're wrong, pure & simple.

redman23

Totally ignoring the FA comments.

You are happy to belive Evra had some inconsistancies despite the FA telling you he was credible.

And that your player wasn't.

I am done with you, there is just nothing I can do against such astounding pig ignorance.

Tobes

You've missed the point, again. I'm NOT commenting on whether Suarez is guilty or innocent. I'm pointing out the farce that The FA called a hearing. I'm pointing out the difference in the way evidence was collected. Also the way that both players gave their statements.

Ok lets ignore the amount of times Evra was abused. What do you say about Evra's claims he was called a n****r? Or perhaps his testimony about his hatred for the word, despite evidence to the contrary?

This casts doubts about how credible a witness Evra is. Something the panel saw fit to ignore for reasons only known to themselves.

VC

I've admitted that Suarez's evidence and testimony was unreliable .

comment by red_man23 (U1669)
posted 1 minute ago

VC

I've admitted that Suarez's evidence and testimony was unreliable .

===

Case closed then

VC

Oh and I made a comment about The FA's comments. I said;

"The quote you've included is subjective. Since when was Suarez on trial for the way he gave his evidence? When was a persons composure integral to whether they are guilty or innocent?"

Perhaps you should read comments addressed to you before shouting about ignorance.

Felliani's

Evra's evidence and testimony was equally unreliable.

comment by red_man23 (U1669)
posted 7 seconds ago
Felliani's

Evra's evidence and testimony was equally unreliable

................

No it was not. As stated in the report.

What part of this do you not understand;

The report concludes: "Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way.

"It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between them.

"Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance. It was, in part, inconsistent with the evidence.

...................

Let me know what it is, exactly, you are having trouble with.

The quote you've included is subjective. Since when was Suarez on trial for the way he gave his evidence?

.......................

WTF?

If you are going to be inconsistant with your evidence, I would really think that would be of great relevance to the trial.

I can see what Red_man23 is saying about the whole FA hearing been a farce, and I tend to agree with him, and like I have said previously, if the Suarez case had gone to a court of law i believe he would of been found innocent.

VC

The problem I have is that Evra's testimony, and evidence was equally unreliable in important areas. Such as what he was actually called. Also in that he has been shown to lie in his evidence. This undermines his credibility.

You can copy and paste all you want. This is not having a debate. This is you copying what someone else thinks, and not using your own independent thought to discuss the points I have raised.

You're going round in circles now and not answering any question I have asked.

this argument is reaching davearmstrong proportions.

VC

"The quote you've included is subjective. Since when was Suarez on trial for the way he gave his evidence?

.......................

WTF?

If you are going to be inconsistant with your evidence, I would really think that would be of great relevance to the trial."

So the long and short of it is the way in which either player delivered their evidence. Evra lied and was inconsistent (what was said/his hatred for the word n****r) but managed to keep his composure.

Suarez was unreliable but was not as composed. There-fore the panel can read into that, that he is probably guilty.

This is you copying what someone else thinks

................

Yes, the people who made the decision. The people who were actually there.

I am posting you what is written on the FA report.

But you keep on ignoring it if you want.

Evra lied and was inconsistent

....................

It is not very often I do this, but you really are not a full shilling.

Funny, you believe Evra lied...but people trained in the LAWS of the game got a different verdict to the one you wanted....