Terry Court Case * Mod Note #51 *

Kess73

froog wrote: »

if he's found innocent in a court of law, how can the FA charge or investigate him? how could they find him guilty when the law finds him innocent, it would look ridiculous.

Quite easily given that it would be a civil case which can find a verdict based on probabilities, and would not have the same reliance on evidence as a criminal case would.

Suarez recieved a longer ban and a larger fine based on the fact that the FA believed that it was probable that he said more to Evra during the course of the game than what he actually admitted to saying. There were no witnesses to anything said in that case save for Suarez and Evra, no tv footage of the six or seven other flashpoints, but Suarez was still punished for those six or seven other possible flashpoints simply because it was regarded as probable.

Going by how the Suarez/Evra case panned out, and using what is known of the Terry/Ferdinand case, then it stands to reason that given there is actually evidence of what words were used that it could very well end in a similar guilty result as the Suarez case did.

Kess73

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'm ashamed to say I have a picture of me as a young fella, probably about 8,9 wearing one like that but its mainly white instead of the blue in that picture.

Stupid parents. :pac:

Ahh Corkonians

. A team that plays in red, an accent that gets mocked by the rest of the country,lots of tracksuits, and a strong dislike of their country's capital city.



You are shouting for the wrong team Gav, that Cork water means you are practically scouse.


If it makes you feel any better, I had a big thick head of curly black hair at one point when I was a kid, so some of my old pics really do help to promote the Scouse stereotype.

GavRedKing

If Terry was to get an 8 game ban after the trial, similar to Suarez, then he'd currently miss :

City - Charity Shield.
Wigan - A
Reading - H
Newcastle - H
QPR - A (No harm) :pac:
Stoke - H
Arsenal - A
Norwich - H

froog

Kess73 wrote: »

Quite easily given that it would be a civil case which can find a verdict based on probabilities, and would not have the same reliance on evidence as a criminal case would.

Suarez recieved a longer ban and a larger fine based on the fact that the FA believed that it was probable that he said more to Evra during the course of the game than what he actually admitted to saying. There were no witnesses to anything said in that case save for Suarez and Evra, no tv footage of the six or seven other flashpoints, but Suarez was still punished for those six or seven other possible flashpoints simply because it was regarded as probable.

Going by how the Suarez/Evra case panned out, and using what is known of the Terry/Ferdinand case, then it stands to reason that given there is actually evidence of what words were used that it could very well end in a similar guilty result as the Suarez case did.

the law supercedes any FA ruling. if terry was subsequently banned for matches having been found innocent in court, chelsea could easily take action against the FA.

GavRedKing

Kess73 wrote: »

Ahh Corkonians

. A team that plays in red, an accent that gets mocked by the rest of the country,lots of tracksuits, and a strong dislike of their country's capital city.

You are shouting for the wrong team Gav, that Cork water means you are practically scouse.

If it makes you feel any better, I had a big thick head of curly black hair at one point when I was a kid, so some of my old pics really do help to promote the Scouse stereotype.

Mind = Blowing :eek:

cgpg5

GavRedKing wrote: »

If Terry was to get an 8 game ban after the trial, similar to Suarez, then he'd currently miss :

City - Charity Shield.
Wigan - A
Reading - H
Newcastle - H
QPR - A (No harm) :pac:
Stoke - H
Arsenal - A
Norwich - H

Are they Chelsea's opening 7 fixtures in the PL? Seriously that should be 18 points anyway what a lovely start! Bar the penultimate game of course

Kess73

froog wrote: »

the law supercedes any FA ruling. if terry was subsequently banned for matches having been found innocent in court, chelsea could easily take action against the FA.

A player being punished by the FA and then being found innocent in a court of law has happened before, and there was no legal action taken against the FA.

The FA could go after Terry for bringing the game into disrepute for his comments towards Kenny and Ferdinand (the non racist comments that Terry has damitted to)

Although if they went down that route they might have to punish Ferdinand for his comments as well. Mind you Ferdinand could counter that by saying he passed comment on something that was true.

As already said, I think that Terry will be facing no action from the FA on this regardless of the court's final verdict, I am just speculating/talking shyte /musing about what I think on it.:)

GavRedKing

GavRedKing wrote: »

Thats it, I'm a racist, I've been foudn out.

No, what I mean is, if Terry's found guilty he'll get a tiny fine and I presume a similar ban to Suarez, 8 games.

I know due to the court case the FA couldnt have acted but it didnt warrant going to court if you ask me, ban Terry, fine him, dealt with. No point dragging it out for months and months.

Also if Terry is found to be innocent I'll bet you all the money in the world the Liverpool crowd will go beserk, theres no way the FA will issue a ban if the courts find him innocent and it will lead to the return of the Suarez debate.

I cant wait for that to happen. :rolleyes:

Cmon, you're a mod in here and you say that?

The debate is warranted, infact there's decent debate going on in here for a change.

clubberlang12

Surely the difference between Terry's case and Suarez's case is the fact that Suarez admitted saying the word "negrito", albeit his defense was that it was a common term used in his native homeland. Terry claims to have only said the accused phrase when rebuting what he was accused of saying. If what Terry is saying is being true to what has actually happened in the incident then this case is nothing like Suarez's case and suggestions that he should be charged by the FA, even if found not guilty, is absurd.

GavRedKing

cgpg5 wrote: »

Are they Chelsea's opening 7 fixtures in the PL? Seriously that should be 18 points anyway what a lovely start! Bar the penultimate game of course

Yes, they're our first 7 fixtures, we have Spurs away as our 8th game so he'll be back for that if he was to get an 8 game ban tomorrow.

rarnes1 wrote: »

Cmon, you're a mod in here and you say that?

The debate is warranted, infact there's decent debate going on in here for a change.

That was in reference to the fact if Terry is found to be inncoent it could very well kick off here and no doubt the Suarez case will be dragged up, as a Mod then there will be obvious cards and bans handed out and I dont want to ahve to hand out cards, that was my point, i didnt make it clear enough I admint but thats what I meant.

I dont think for one minute that all the Liverpool fans are going to go mad over it but it could kick off with all fans across the Forum as you're no doubt aware from the Suarez/Evra thread from laste year.

This thread so far has had some very good points made by a few people and has been a success with little to no mod actions required and I applaude you all for that, but thats before we know the decision of the court, I hope i can say the same very soon.

Edit : Oh and I welcome the debate Rarnes1, its defiently the most comparable case to use when looking Terry's current case. I just dont want a shit storm to erupt from it if Terry is found to be innocent.

osarusan

clubberlang12 wrote: »

Terry claims to have only said the accused phrase when rebuting what he was accused of saying.

Is this known to be the case? Has Terry admitted using the alleged words,but said he was only denying that he'd said them in the first place?

Because if that's his argument, and Ferdinand says he wasn't aware of anything until it was pointed out to him after the game, who was Terry shouting to/at when denying he'd said anything?

GavRedKing

osarusan wrote: »

Is this known to be the case? Has Terry admitted using the alleged words,but said he was only denying that he'd said them in the first place?

Because if that's his argument, and Ferdinand says he wasn't aware of anything until it was pointed out to him after the game, who was Terry shouting to/at when denying he'd said anything?

Your right in what your saying.

Terry's defence is that he was only repating what he was been accused of saying.

Ferdinand said he didnt hear anything and shook Terrys hand after the game until somebody showed him the video he was unaware of it.

GavRedKing

The verdict is due tomorrow around 2pm.

osarusan

GavRedKing wrote: »

Your right in what your saying.

Terry's defence is that he was only repating what he was been accused of saying.

Ferdinand said he didnt hear anything and shook Terrys hand after the game until somebody showed him the video he was unaware of it.

Has this not been asked in court? Who he was denying the accusation to?

Kess73

clubberlang12 wrote: »

Surely the difference between Terry's case and Suarez's case is the fact that Suarez admitted saying the word "negrito", albeit his defense was that it was a common term used in his native homeland. Terry claims to have only said the accused phrase when rebuting what he was accused of saying. If what Terry is saying is being true to what has actually happened in the incident then this case is nothing like Suarez's case and suggestions that he should be charged by the FA, even if found not guilty, is absurd.

For Terry's story that he was saying to Ferdinand that he did not call him those words, it would need Ferdinand to at least say that he heard those words from Terry.


Given that Terry has already changed his version from having never said those words at all on the pitch, to his current version of how he did actually say those word but used them as part of a conversation with Ferdinand does cast doubt over Terry's version.


To again use the Suarez case, in that case the FA siad that they thought it was very unlikely that the word Suarez used was meant in a nice manner based on the way the two men were arguing/conversing, so if that is a rough guideline as to how they reach a verdict, then the very same could be said of Terry as he was shouting in an angry manner and said the words "fcuking black c**t" and his next two words after that were "fcuking knobhead"

An angry man shouting that at another man could easily be taken as one who was not trying to calm down a situation, and instead as one who was trying to cause offence. For a man who wanted to make sure that it was clear he was not making a racist comment, he did not spend much time trying to convince the injured party given that he roared what he did and then turned to walk away.

Kess73

osarusan wrote: »

Has this not been asked in court? Who he was denying the accusation to?

He claims it was to Ferdinand.

GavRedKing

Its not like Terry to try and talk his way out of things, see Barcelona away and Sanchez incident.

I still dont forgive him for leaving the team down that night with his stupid knee, nearly cost us big time that night.

iregk

Sorry I don't mean to drag this into a Suarez V Terry debate but what exactly is it that has Liverpool fans looking for equal treatment i.e. a pound of JT flesh. What are the parallels of this case and the Suarez one resulting in an 8 game ban.

As people have said if JT is cleared tomorrow of this and looking at the transcripts again there is no way he can't be in any reasonable society then how can the FA investigate. Is that not saying, excuse us the justice system but we don't believe you. You say innocent we say guilty. That show a complete lack of trust in the legal system and completely undermines it.

Kess73

GavRedKing wrote: »

The verdict is due tomorrow around 2pm.

Meet you here at 14:01 then. I'll bring the popcorn and you bring the drinks.:p

GavRedKing

I've no probelm people bringing up the Suarez case as it to inovlves racism issue.

Peoples main gripe with the Terry case is that it does appear that Terry is seen to be saying something racist towards Ferdinand and in front of cameras while there was no video evidence to back up Evras claims.

It would seem if this didnt go to the CPS then the FA would easily have charged Terry and issued a ban on a par to Suarez's ban.

We have to wait only a day to find out which side the courts found in favour of, then the real debate will start. :pac:

GavRedKing

Kess73 wrote: »

Meet you here at 14:01 then. I'll bring the popcorn and you bring the drinks.:p

This do?

Kess73

iregk wrote: »

Sorry I don't mean to drag this into a Suarez V Terry debate but what exactly is it that has Liverpool fans looking for equal treatment i.e. a pound of JT flesh. What are the parallels of this case and the Suarez one resulting in an 8 game ban.

As people have said if JT is cleared tomorrow of this and looking at the transcripts again there is no way he can't be in any reasonable society then how can the FA investigate. Is that not saying, excuse us the justice system but we don't believe you. You say innocent we say guilty. That show a complete lack of trust in the legal system and completely undermines it.

It would be more about wanting to see some kind of consistency from the FA rather than getting Shylock's share of John Terry.


There is more evidence of potential racial abuse in the Terry case than in the Suarez case, but we could see an outcome where the case with the lesser amount of actual evidence is the only one that saw any punishment handed out.


Yes I know one was a civil case and the other a criminal case, but it does undermine the FA in my eyes if it turns out that way rather than undermining the legal system.

If Terry gets a not guilty verdict tomorrow, then in the eyes of the law he is exactly that, but a civil case does not have to acknowledge the outcome of a criminal case, and Terry could be brought before such a hearing regardless of tomorrow's outcome. I am just curious as to which way the FA will jump come 14:00 tomorrow.

Kess73

GavRedKing wrote: »

This do?

As long as mine is full of Aspall organic cyder (always with a y ) I will be happy. A bit of JD's Tennessee Honey to chase it down would go nicely as well.

GavRedKing

Kess73 wrote: »

As long as mine is full of Aspall organic cyder (always with a y ) I will be happy. A bit of JD's Tennessee Honey to chase it down would go nicely as well.

Thats some fine exquisite taste you have there Kess.

Cyder should be no problem but the JD could be a problem, I never know such a product existed. :eek:

As a fan of a chilled neat Jack, whats the Tennessee Honey like?

WAAAAAY off topic

SantryRed

Isn't the difference between the court case and a FA investigation that in court they have to be proven to be definitely guilty whereas for the FA (i.e. Suarez) it was the balance of probabilities. So they could ban him even if he is found not guilty. I doubt they will though.

TerryTibbs!

Kess73 wrote: »

As long as mine is full of Aspall organic cyder (always with a y ) I will be happy. A bit of JD's Tennessee Honey to chase it down would go nicely as well.

GavRedKing wrote: »

Thats some fine exquisite taste you have there Kess.

Cyder should be no problem but the JD could be a problem, I never know such a product existed. :eek:

As a fan of a chilled neat Jack, whats the Tennessee Honey like?

WAAAAAY off topic

NO MORE OFF TOPIC POSTING

LAST WARNING FOR YOU TWO.

GavRedKing

TerryTibbs! wrote: »

NO MORE OFF TOPIC POSTING

LAST WARNING FOR YOU TWO.

Sorry Mod.

Predalien

iregk wrote: »

As people have said if JT is cleared tomorrow of this and looking at the transcripts again there is no way he can't be in any reasonable society then how can the FA investigate. Is that not saying, excuse us the justice system but we don't believe you. You say innocent we say guilty. That show a complete lack of trust in the legal system and completely undermines it.

It wouldn't undermine it in the slightest, the justice system is investigating a possible criminal offence and this entails a requirement for a certain degree of intent on the part of the accused, and for the case to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. An investigation by the FA would be under their own rules which don't involve an intent requirement nor would it be subject to the same burden of proof, by using the words alleged it is very possible he breached the rules of the game, even it is found that use of those words did not break the law in the circumstances.

evad_lhorg

At this stage I cant see him being found guilty.

Sir Gallagher

carbon nanotube

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

looks about right .

risenbass

GavRedKing wrote: »

I've no probelm people bringing up the Suarez case as it to inovlves racism issue.

Peoples main gripe with the Terry case is that it does appear that Terry is seen to be saying something racist towards Ferdinand and in front of cameras while there was no video evidence to back up Evras claims.

It would seem if this didnt go to the CPS then the FA would easily have charged Terry and issued a ban on a par to Suarez's ban.

We have to wait only a day to find out which side the courts found in favour of, then the real debate will start. :pac:

Didn't Suarez admit to using a word that would be considered racist in England?

Kess73

risenbass wrote: »

Didn't Suarez admit to using a word that would be considered racist in England?

He admitted using a word in Spanish that when translated directly to English could be used in a racist manner. In Spanish the word he used can be used in a friendly manner, a sarcastic manner or in an insulting manner.


But six or seven other claims against Suarez were denied by Suarez and there was no evidence whatsoever that he said them, but he was punished for them anyway based on the fact that the FA thought that he probably said them.


The Terry case is different because there is actually footage of what he said whereas in the Suarez case no footage of him saying anything could be found. Also given that what Terry said, "you fcuking black c***! fcuking knobhead" ,was in English there is nothing that can be lost in translation, and unless Terry can prove that those words were said in a context that was not insulting or threatening he will be found guilty. If he can convince the court that those words were said in the manner with which he claimed he used them (he claims he was explaining to Ferdinand that he did not call him a black c***) then it was all just one big misunderstanding and everyone can go back to being top blokes again.

Unless of course Ferdinand decides to bring a civil case against Terry or if the FA decided to do something similar.

risenbass

I get what you're saying but after he admitted to using it once they assumed he said it more than once. With Terry he is denying saying it except to say he didn't say it. that would be the difference in the two cases.

I personally think Terry is guilty of saying it and meaning it to be insulting. He deserves as much as Suarez got at least. Don't know if he will get it or not though.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

Nobody takes testimony from friends seriously though and I feel it to be a waste of time, as do most. What else are they going to say? Forget a pinch of salt, a massive mountain of salt would be more accurate.

I find it more telling that Mikel was 10 yards from him and yet chose to have a statement read out instead of being there himself. The look on Mikels face as Terry shouts those remarks speaks a thousand words.

Crackle wrote: »

Where did you see that?

The only one I've ever seen is this, and it appears to be the live footage from Sky and Mikel isn't in it.

Found the clip I was talking about. I knew it existed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNXYg1cJi-Y

kryogen

I remembered seeing that clip at the time and thinking, well Mikel has certainly heard something he didnt like anyway, but then, if he had heard racist abuse in the way it is alleged would he not have acted on it out of instinct if nothing else?

Though him not wanting to appear at court himself could be telling also I guess, hard to tell really.

kryogen

lol it brought me to that clip of Terry spitting at Tevez, such a lovely guy

iregk

Kess73 wrote: »

He admitted using a word in Spanish that when translated directly to English could be used in a racist manner. In Spanish the word he used can be used in a friendly manner, a sarcastic manner or in an insulting manner.


But six or seven other claims against Suarez were denied by Suarez and there was no evidence whatsoever that he said them, but he was punished for them anyway based on the fact that the FA thought that he probably said them.

I think the differences though don't stop at the intent. In the Suarez case you had a player who flatly denied anything to start with. Then changed his story twice and finished up with it was all harmless friendly fun. Add to him Kuyt who's story changed 3 times and a manager who's story also changed more times that our weather of late. All that leads to the suspicion of cover up. On top of all that you've a club PR department who handled it absolutely despicably and in full public form as well. Neither Suarez, Kenny or Liverpool came out of that in any sort of good light and were always going to p!$$ the FA off the way they handled it.

Contrast it to the JT case. He has said very little apart from slight exchanges with the media. DiMatteo has said hardly anything and the club have held a position of saying next to nothing until the final verdict in the case. The difference in class between Liverpool and Chelsea in this has been astonishing even more so for Chelsea who many pop at at being a classless club.

I can see today JT being found innocent and the FA just going with it or releasing a statement saying they condone racism of any form etc...

cgpg5

@Kirby

"The look on Mikel's face speaks a thousand words"

Are you saying that from that clip? C'mon he shows no expression whatsoever all he does is look at JT (and there's no guarantee he's even looking at Terry, could be getting instructions from somewhere else, but look we'll assume he is) turn back in a second and get on with it. The way you were talking you'd swear his mouth dropped open in shock. Gee people will jump to any conclusions.

GavRedKing

I'll be getting the popcorn ready for 2pm anyway, should be fun around here.

iregk

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'll be getting the popcorn ready for 2pm anyway, should be fun around here.

I smell another conspiracy theory from the Liverpool corner...

iregk

iregk wrote: »

I smell another conspiracy theory from the Liverpool corner...

haha


/groan

GavRedKing

iregk wrote: »

I smell another conspiracy theory from the Liverpool EVERY corner...

Fixed that for ya

In fairness if hes found not guilty there will be a lot of fans in the same boat, not just Liverpool fans.

I've tough day in work, dont want to have to start handing out cards later either.

Kess73

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'll be getting the popcorn ready for 2pm anyway, should be fun around here.

I'm bringing the popcorn, you are meant to have the drinks.:mad:

Kess73

iregk wrote: »

I think the differences though don't stop at the intent. In the Suarez case you had a player who flatly denied anything to start with. Then changed his story twice and finished up with it was all harmless friendly fun. Add to him Kuyt who's story changed 3 times and a manager who's story also changed more times that our weather of late. All that leads to the suspicion of cover up. On top of all that you've a club PR department who handled it absolutely despicably and in full public form as well. Neither Suarez, Kenny or Liverpool came out of that in any sort of good light and were always going to p!$$ the FA off the way they handled it.

Contrast it to the JT case. He has said very little apart from slight exchanges with the media. DiMatteo has said hardly anything and the club have held a position of saying next to nothing until the final verdict in the case. The difference in class between Liverpool and Chelsea in this has been astonishing even more so for Chelsea who many pop at at being a classless club.

I can see today JT being found innocent and the FA just going with it or releasing a statement saying they condone racism of any form etc...

Totally agree that Suarez did change his story from having said nothing to admitting he did say what he said.

But then again so did John Terry. His first version was that he never said the words at all, and his current version is that he did say them in a sarcastic manner during an exchange with Ferdinand.

As for how the different clubs dealt with the issue, I think the fact that one was a civil case and the other being a criminal investigation made a big difference in terms of what people from each club were willing to say in public. I also think that John Terry being english had a big part to play in how the english media went looking for quotes from the clubs.

I think that if the cases were reversed and it was let's say it Anelka during his time as a Chelsea player as the foreign player facing a civil case for alleged racist comments during a game a la the Suarez case, and Gerrard as the England international who was caught on camera a la Terry, that we would have seen Anelka getting pillored in the media and Gerrard getting the easier ride.

GavRedKing

Kess73 wrote: »

I'm bringing the popcorn, you are meant to have the drinks.:mad:

Done,






Only an hour to go before we find out the courts decision.

Masked Man

Kess,

you keep saying JT denied ever saying "black ****". Be a dear and back that up please.

Kirby

cgpg5 wrote: »

@Kirby

"The look on Mikel's face speaks a thousand words"

Are you saying that from that clip? C'mon he shows no expression whatsoever all he does is look at JT (and there's no guarantee he's even looking at Terry, could be getting instructions from somewhere else, but look we'll assume he is) turn back in a second and get on with it. The way you were talking you'd swear his mouth dropped open in shock. Gee people will jump to any conclusions.

You are clearly wrong. He turns around to look at him, then purses his lips and grimaces. "Showed no expression?" Jaysus mate, don't ever play poker......you would lose the clothes off your back in jig time.

You don't have to be a body language expert to see what he thought at what was being said. The video is clear as day even if it is low quality. Watch it in HD if you can't tell.

Kess73

Masked Man wrote: »

Kess,

you keep saying JT denied ever saying "black ****". Be a dear and back that up please.

Will have a look later for the interviews that Terry gave last year around the time of the interview. In at least one he says that he used industrial language but nothing like the racist language he was accused of.

wonderfullife

Kess73 wrote: »

He admitted using a word in Spanish that when translated directly to English could be used in a racist manner. In Spanish the word he used can be used in a friendly manner, a sarcastic manner or in an insulting manner.


But six or seven other claims against Suarez were denied by Suarez and there was no evidence whatsoever that he said them, but he was punished for them anyway based on the fact that the FA thought that he probably said them.


The Terry case is different because there is actually footage of what he said whereas in the Suarez case no footage of him saying anything could be found. Also given that what Terry said, "you fcuking black c***! fcuking knobhead" ,was in English there is nothing that can be lost in translation, and unless Terry can prove that those words were said in a context that was not insulting or threatening he will be found guilty. If he can convince the court that those words were said in the manner with which he claimed he used them (he claims he was explaining to Ferdinand that he did not call him a black c***) then it was all just one big misunderstanding and everyone can go back to being top blokes again.

Unless of course Ferdinand decides to bring a civil case against Terry or if the FA decided to do something similar.

you're so wrong on the bolded bit it's untrue. In any court case it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt (or in a civil trial to prove on the balance of probability of guilt). Terry is presumed innocent from the get-go, he doesn't have to prove anything in any context. If the prosecution can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then he will be found not guilty. There is plenty of reasonable doubt here from a legal perspective.