I don't think that the slight problems with Ferdinand's memory of the incident make him an unreliable witness though, Lidls.
The judge would appear to agree with me.
"Overall I found Anton Ferdinand to be a believable witness on the central issue".
"There were discrepancies in his evidence. To a large extent this is what you would expect from a truthful witness. Much of what happened; happened in a brief period of time, in circumstances where the result of the game was more important than any individual argument between two players."
Terry doesn't come off so well, despite sticking to his story all of the way through.
"Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic examination, unlikely. It is not the most obvious response. It is sandwiched between other undoubted insults."
The judge stops short of calling him a liar, but he clearly doesn't believe him. He's not certain of the evidence against him though and Cole vaguely backs him up, so he finds him not guilty.
He appears to think that Ferdinand simply let the incident go and agreed to do so after the game.
"Another explanation, not one advanced by either party but which certainly crossed my mind, is that Anton Ferdinand did hear the words, did not want to take it any further, agreed in the changing room that he had heard nothing and stuck by that account. In short he may initially have wanted simply to move on, and as things snowballed found it expedient to stick with that position."
