And yet Evra changed his evidence three times, lied on oath about his distaste of

Interesting that it's only United 'supporters' who are so myopic that they can't see its not the individuals that are at the heart of this. The real problem lies with the FA and its inability to conduct an investigation and produce a verdict that is based merely upon facts. The wider problem lies with the media. saint is completely right when he says that you should be interested because one day this amoral self-interest on behalf of the FA is going to bite your club severely.

 

Four game premier league ban for ridiculous sending off in a pre season game for Rooney anyone?

It's already happened many times Dave, don't worry about that.

No, the FA are shambolic, no argument with that.

 

The problem is that the burden of proof required is imo too low in such a serious case.

Also, I don't think the fact that Evra spoke well and without an interpreter (something which the panel seemed to think made him credible), whereas Suarez struggled with his evidence and required an interpreter (something which the panel seemed to think made him unreliable) should be a determinant factor in deciding who was more credible in a case that clearly involved two men with varying grasps of the English language!

The report is full of stuff about the way in which the evidence was presented and more than once referred to Evra's credibility due to the fact that he presented his evidence in a clear and consistent manner...unlike Suarez who seemed to struggle with questions and looked uncomfortable presenting his evidence...stuff like that should have no bearing on the credibility/reliability of a witness due solely to the fact that one of the witnesses has a significantly greater grasp of the language. Added to this is that Evra's consistency was down to the fact that his statement at the hearing was produced after consulting the video evidence with an FA representative, something that they failed to mention until after the hearing was under way and something that was denied to Suarez, again, this should have had no bearing as one of the witnesses was given preferential treatment!

 

The fact that has consistently ignored is the difference between the two cases. Thecase of JT and AF was reported by a police officer and AF was then given the choice of having his case heard by the FA or by a judicial court. AF then had the choice taken out of his hands by the CPS and it ended in court. In the LS and twat case, twat was given the same choice and rejected the chance of a court. What you need to ask is why did he turn down the chance of a judicial court? I believe he chose the FA route because it is a case of probability with the FA but with the courts it is 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and that is where the difference is. IF twat had gone to court, and let's not forget he was so truly insulted at being called a '******' 10 times and then to being called a negro once or twice, he would have had his witness statement torn to shreds along with SAF's.

Terry was found not guilty in his court case, LS would also have been afforded the same verdict and more than likely been left with the option of counter claiming against his accuser

 

Evra told a global tv audience a few minutes after the match his first version of the story in which he said 'ni**er' was the what Suarez had called him(which was a lie), by doing that didn't he prejudice the FA's case due to the tv interview?

Was the FA's policy of allowing Evra to sit with FA members and study the Suarez statement and invite him to change his own statement to suit his own case a day before the hearing fair?

Why was Evra not punished for the abuse he admitted he'd used on Suarez during the match?

If the case had gone to court instead of before an FA panel would Suarez have been found guilty?

 

The apparent fact that Evra was given the opportunity twice to report the matter to the police yet didn't is quite surprising!

I imagine he realised his initial claims, i.e. he was called '****** 10 times' and the cameras will prove it blah blah blah could not be substantiated by any 3rd party evidence. So he had no alternative but to change his story and by doing so this would have been ripped apart by a court of law, he was obviously imo then advised not to go to the police as he would not win and thus decided to concoct a story that involved his 'misunderstanding' of Spanish words due to his knowledge of Italian. A story that is implausible and contrived, yet was accepted as being credible!

 

The FA conducting an interview with Evra with knowledge of Suarez' statement is fundamentally a breach of any disciplinary hearing I would imagine. The fact that this was not disclosed to LFC or the panel until the hearing got underway should have alerted the panel to the clear bias and agenda that was being pursued by the FA, yet they did nothing except allow LFC to see the minutes from the meeting (some of which could not be found iirc!)

I guess Evra was not punished as this would be seen to be punishing a victim of racial abuse, despite the fact that the whole situation was caused by Evra's insults in the first place!

The evidence suggests that Suarez would have been found not guilty in court seeing as their was no 3rd party evidence.

My main beef at the moment is that the whole thing was based on a contrived story, or a lie if you like! Evra and Fergie ensured that the word ****** was used in the initial complaint in the ref's room, the fact that this word was never mentioned by Suarez means that Evra and Fergie were wrong (or lying), yet for some reason this has been dismissed as immaterial and unbelievably Evra was seen as credible, despite the fact that his initial complaint was implausible and contrived! Unbelievable!

 

Dogshit UIR, and you know it. I was asked to provide proof where evra perjured himself - I DID. Now I ask you, Rusholme, Jip et al to provide verifiable evidence that Suarez lied. Not the opinion based on the 'balance of probabilities' that the 'independent' panel regurgitated, but actual FACTS that Suarez lied, as clearly and unambiguously as Evra. AND, don't forget, Suarez was on trial, Evra was the chief witness of the prosecution, and, even though this was workplace hearing and had no status in law, even in civil law, based upon Roman law, the accused still should have the basic PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE that wasn't afforded to Suarez in any way shape or form.

 

For my tu-peneths worth, in addition to the "Cole augmented his statement" three times so therefore isn't credible, Evra changed his statement three times but is credible argument, there appears to be another change of the rules in the latest JT case.

In the report the FA say JT using the offensive word alone will not be enough to find him guilty and it must be proved he used it offensively. But I believe in the Suarez case the FA said just the use of the Spanish word for black was enough to convict and the context Suarez argued it was used in was of no consequence. Haven't bothered checking it out but if true yet another example of one of the FA's main planks of argument changing between the cases, and a lower bar for Suarez.

 

"The FA conducting an interview with Evra with knowledge of Suarez' statement is fundamentally a breach of any disciplinary hearing I would imagine."

Absolutely. I have been a workplace rep for decades. Had that happened in a disciplinary or dismissal hearing we'd have immediately walked out and said the next satge would be at an Employment Tribunal, and Liverpool should have done that and said it needed to go to the CAS in Switzerland. Being woefully represented by McCormick, they probably thought, complacently, that because there was not one shred of independent, verifiable evidence that the case would be thrown out.

Btw, whoever it was that said that Dalglish and Commolli 'lied' about Evra being previously involved in race allegations, let's remember what happened when he assaulted a member of Chelsea groundstaff and lied about it being self-defence. Mike Phelan, who wasn't even there, played the ubiquitous and convenient race card on Evra's behalf when they realised what he'd done and they needed a plausible reason. Not once did Evra correct this allegation, when he knew damn well it was utterly bogus. No wonder he was labelled an unreliable witness.

 

The language experts stated that the words Evra said he heard from Suarez made no sense and would not be spoken by someone with Suarez' cultural background! They also stated that the words Suarez said he used made sense and cannot automatically be considered as offensive! The panel then decided that Evra's evidence was more credible as he presented this evidence clearly and consistently, despite the fact that they made no fucking sense whatsoever!

 

****ing hell, calm down.

He WAS NOT (as you so clearly love the upper case to emphasise your point) on trial in a law court. At all. At no point whatsoever was he on trial. Just so that is perfectly clear to you.

No, it was an FA hearing for breaking an FA rule. That's it. Accept that, that is fact.

No one needs to provide proof he lied, he admitted that he said the whole crux to what he had been charged with. After that it was all down to context and interpretation, and no one bought the term of endearment bollocks story.

I don't know this as I don't pass off what is my opinion as fact, unlike some, but I would guess that the reason Evra didn't go to the Police was that he simply wanted what he perceived to be abuse to be dealt with in house. Not everyone calls the cops.

Living in Wales, if I saw my arse everytime I heard 'English so and so' spoken to someone or at something I'd have a hotline to the local cop shop.

 

There is no doubt that Liverpool woefully messed up their case, stuff like undisclosed meetings between Evra and the FA, missing minutes from said meeting and eventual damning evidence that Suarez had previously used the phrase 'dale negro' to Toure (I think) the season before should all have been jumped on by McCormick. Unfortunately it seems that Suarez was doomed the moment Fergie and Evra 'lied' in the ref's room and no amount of proving clandestine behaviour and relying on the lack of any 3rd party evidence was ever going to save Suarez!

 

Can't be arsed to get into this specific case again, but that kind of reasoning would see pretty much every rapist walk free 100% of the time.

 

You're mixing Judicial law and FA law together Swarbs, plus i don't think there's ever been a player up before the FA on a 'rape' charge.

 

But Evra knew full well that the FA had the ability to **** things up, he was on the wrong end of one of their decisions previously where his testimony was ripped apart and he was basically seen as an unreliable witness! Why would you want the same organisation to deal with something that offended you so much that you can not even bring yourself to utter the word that was used against you? Surely you would want to avoid that possibility happening again and would want proper justice to be brought upon the guy who called you something that was so offensive that you could not repeat it, even to your team-mates! Having said that, at the time when he was offered the chance to report it to the police he had realised and possibly been advised that he was in danger of making himself look like he had lied! Which it turns out was true!

 

It's not like you Swarbs to confuse the FA hearing with the criminal courts! You are usually the first to correct people that the two bodies have different rules! Just saying...

 

He was the accused. He was charged. Many idiots on these boards have justified the use of the balance of probabilities, as used in civil courts, as if it were a matrimonial or property dispute between two parties. It wasn't anything of the sort - Suarez was charged, there was a defence and a combined prosecution/judge/jury and chief witness. But there was not, in any way shape or form, a presumption of innocence that should have been afforded to anyone defending a charge, in whatever court.

I have provided proof that Evra lied (not that it's any secret to anyone who actually reads the 115 page report, including the FA and those that wrote it) as I was challenged to do. Several United posters then moved the goalposts and said Suarez lied too. I challenge them and you to back this up with the same level of fact (cogent?) presented against Evra.

Over to you.

And Evra does not now, nor ever had to at time, report this to the police. In fact, had there been any semblance of a criminal offence being committed Goulding, a QC and an officer of the court was obliged to report it. I've also provided several links in the past to Justice department's public order offence website, which includes race/hate crimes. If it is within the public interest the DPP or CPS can bring the case even without the 'victim' being involved. And any member of the public can report such a 'crime' whether they witnessed it or not.

So go on, knock yourself out. luther Blisset certainly wanted it to go to court - don't let the fact that there is no evidence nor intent put you off.

 

It clearly has not occured to you, or anyone else on this board, that Evra just reported what he heard said and then expected the FA to deal with it?

Not too unreasonable, it's not down to him that the FA can make a pigs ear of most things.

I personally think it takes a very ****ed up individual to want call the police, who, let's face it, have some crimes they could be fighting, every time someone breaks the PC code of conduct.