299. References both Kuyt and Comolli contradicting Suarez's original statement, which Suarez puts down to a misunderstanding or being lost in translation...
My favourite part of it is this: 'Mr Marriner explained to Mr Dalglish what had been reported to him by Sir Alex and Mr Evra. Mr Marriner said in his witness statement that Mr Evra had told him that Mr Suarez had said to him "I don't talk to you because you ******s", although Mr Dalglish told us that he did not remember the referee saying that to him. Since Mr Suarez accepted Mr. Marriner's witness statement, we accept Mr Marriner's evidence that he said this to Mr Dalglish.' So Suarez, who was not present during the conversation between Dalglish and Marriner described above, did not (indeed could not) dispute Marriner's witness account, and so it is therefore taken to be true? How could Suarez's acceptance possibly verify it, if he wasn't even present at any point examined during this account? They may as well have said 'Since some bloke down the road accepted Mr. Marriner's witness statement, we accept Mr Marriner's evidence that he said this to Mr Dalglish.' This has no bearing on the outcome, obviously, but what a set of idiots they must be if that's how they verify accounts.
It does seem a bit wacky, but then surely the argument is that if Suarez has agreed that nothing else Marriner has said is wrong, there's no reason to doubt that he did tell Dalglish. As with all these things, they're just looking at what's most likely to have happened, rather than going OTT in trying to verify absolutely every unimportant detail.
Yeah read that bit now, very different to what has been claimed IE " wont speak to you because you are black". Still does not look good for credibility when testimonies change or are "lost in translation"
Making an apology is an admittance of guilt. What you say may be true, but really the FA's judgement has been flawed. They've based their findings on circumstancial evidence. This is why this matter should've been settled by the two parties involved. 'It does appear he used the words in a negative context': whose word have we got about that? It still boils down to he said and he said, and although this isn't a court matter, in a court that evidence wouldn't hold water. We all know it. And this Spanish expert. Is he Spanish or South American - or even English? SA Spanish isn't actually Spanish, is it, isn't it a variation? No way should Ferguson et al be called as 'witnesses' when they were nowhere within earshot of the incident. If Kuyt and Commoli came out with their evidence then yes, Suarez looks a pillock. If you'll excuse the unintentional pun, however, Evra hasn't come out of this whiter than white, either. By all means wash your hands of him if that's what you want, that's your choice, but like I said on ja606 to someone else, if Suarez stays, calms himself down, and listens to any lectures I imagine the owners and Kenny will give him - don't think they'll let him off this lightly - don't bother to celebrate the next time he turns out for us and scores a goal.
1) As I explained, even if his guilt is a certainty as we both agree, the ban is not. The FA can extend the ban as they see fit based on the evidence. You know very well that I'm talking to the majority of Liverpool fans on here when I've said they are backing their player blindly. You and SKY are the only ones I've seen suggest that Suarez might not be whiter than white, the latter got abuse from several other fans for his troubles. 2) The FA are entitled to alter the ban based on several grounds. As far as I'm aware Suarez has not apologised and was consistently contradicted throughout the process. If you provide unreliable evidence that when pressed are forced to admit were lies you will find that you lose your benefit of the doubt. You're not seriously going to suggest that Suarez doesn't deserve an 8 game ban, are you?
I agree it's an unimportant detail, but it just caught my attention. But that portion of Marriner's statement can only be verified by those present besides himself, which was only Dalglish and Dowd. Since Suarez wasn't there, he probably just accepted it because it has no real bearing on the case and he has no credible means to dispute it. This doesn't, however, verify it. They didn't really need to include this detail in the report, in my opinion.
I'm sure LFC's lawyers are looking into this statement word for word. They're better qualified than we are to analyse it. They may advise Suarez to apologise. He may be told by the owners to do so, to save the face and the reputation of the club some supporters are more concerned about rather than the feelings of a player who's put his all into the team. Tainted by association. Doesn't alter one thing, though: it's been Evra's favourite past time to accuse, and I wonder who's next on his hit list?
Evra allowed to give evidence while watching video of events, Suarez not allowe to watxh video........hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!
Spanish :- porque = because; por que? = Why?; pronunciation is the same. So FA settle on "Because your black" rather than "Why? negro"................................
The tackle that left Evra in shock http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms and the FA decide his evidence is credible? ( at 1:15)
Circumstancial evidence does affect the balance of probability, so I suppose even the FA would concede that element of what you say. But whether you believe Evra or not, from the report I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that Suarez used the phrase "because you are black". While in the context of a heated football match that in isolation doesn't warrant anything close to an 8 match ban, the fact that he's not willing to apologise for that reflects badly on him and those that defend him.
Either this is a clever forgery, or Evra falsely painted himself as too pure to use a certain word: http://bit.ly/syAq0K
