OJ Simpson was somehow found guilty in a court but found guilty in a civil trial for damages. This is not different as the proof of guilt is less for the FA. If they think hes 99% guilty the FA can suspend him but the court has to let him off, even the judge said as much. Only a moron would believe Terrys story.
Flyer give it a rest. You had this argument with someone before. By your rationale, all the Courts rulings on all cases must be wrong then?
The ramifications for JT and the man who stood in court as a defence witness(Ashley Cole) would be pretty horrendous if JT either didn't get or didn't accept(no chance) the FA ban that's coming. Ultimately there could be the possibility of perjury charges. Now, you simply can't do that to your defence witness, can you?
Where there's an asterisk after a word, look for a section below it with an asterisk before a word, because that second section explains the context of the first section in more detail than would have been sensible to do at the time of writing the first section. If you want to make people believe you're in a certain position then you need to act as though you are in that situation. Regardless of whether he's guilty or not, or what it would take for people to believe his version of events, if John Terry wants people to believe he is innocent then he needs to act how he would if he were innocent.
