John Terry Trial.

[AQMP]

Terry's legal team pushing to have the case dismissed through lack of evidence and Ferdinand's poor credibility as a witness.

[Declan]

So Terry says he did call Ferdinand a black **** but in his defence it was in the context of saying that he didn't call him a black **** yet Ferdinand says he never heard him calling him anything!

Bizarre alright and Terry's lawyers says Ferdinand lacks credibility

[AQMP]

Application to have the charges dismissed was unsuccessful, the trial goes on, Terry now giving evidence.  Unless Terry shoots himself in the foot while giving evidence (which is possible), I'd say it has gone well for him and there's a fair chance of a not guilty based on reasonable doubt.

[Main Street]

So Terry says he did call Ferdinand a black **** but in his defence it was in the context of saying that he didn't call him a black **** yet Ferdinand says he never heard him calling him anything!

Bizarre alright and Terry's lawyers says Ferdinand lacks credibility

But if Ferdinand had heard Terry calling him a black ****, he would have been very insulted.
If Craggy Island had a courthouse ....

[Norf Tyrone]

Application to have the charges dismissed was unsuccessful, the trial goes on, Terry now giving evidence.  Unless Terry shoots himself in the foot while giving evidence (which is possible), I'd say it has gone well for him and there's a fair chance of a not guilty based on reasonable doubt.

Yeah, I'd say that it has gone well for Terry so far. He has been consistant with his evidence, and to the best of my knowledge the Ferdinand prosecution has not shown anything or delivered anything to countenance this. Indeed the lip reader employed by the prosecution admitted that 'it was not an exact science'!

We've already seen evidence where Ferdinand may be classed as unreliable as he has already changed his story about the run up to the exchange.

On a side note, Rio Ferdinand is really embarassing himself throughout this, and a lot of neutrals in Twitter are starting to question his influence on his brother through all of this. Indeed the defence lawyer has alluded to Rio's influence in the trial IIRC.

[CiKe]

So Terry says he did call Ferdinand a black **** but in his defence it was in the context of saying that he didn't call him a black **** yet Ferdinand says he never heard him calling him anything!

Bizarre alright and Terry's lawyers says Ferdinand lacks credibility

Agreed. Ferdinand probably does lack credibility, but surely not as much credibility as saying you were responding to someone incorrectly thinking you had called them something (particularly when that someone didn't actually hear anything). Surely if he did think Ferdinand was incorrectly accusing him of calling him a "black c*nt" he would say "black c*nt? I didn't call you a black c*nt" not "...black c*nt, f*cking knobhead"

[BennyCake]

Jesus, this thread is boring the arse off me. I'm off to watch 'Love Thy Neighbour'.

[AQMP]

So Terry says he did call Ferdinand a black **** but in his defence it was in the context of saying that he didn't call him a black **** yet Ferdinand says he never heard him calling him anything!

Bizarre alright and Terry's lawyers says Ferdinand lacks credibility

Agreed. Ferdinand probably does lack credibility, but surely not as much credibility as saying you were responding to someone incorrectly thinking you had called them something (particularly when that someone didn't actually hear anything). Surely if he did think Ferdinand was incorrectly accusing him of calling him a "black c*nt" he would say "black c*nt? I didn't call you a black c*nt" not "...black c*nt, f*cking knobhead"

I don't disagree with you, but the burden of proof is on the accuser and Ferdinand is the main prosecution witness.  If he lacks credibility and it's a case of he said/he said then it's hard to give a guilty verdict?

[From the Bunker]

I hear he will get £2.5k fine if Guilty. If he gets £150k a week, that would be 1.7 of a wwkly wage. So if he is proven guilty how many games of a ban? Will he get 8 from the English FA? Or is this seperate and will be ignored by FA?

Apologies not up to speed on this.

[CiKe]

So Terry says he did call Ferdinand a black **** but in his defence it was in the context of saying that he didn't call him a black **** yet Ferdinand says he never heard him calling him anything!

Bizarre alright and Terry's lawyers says Ferdinand lacks credibility

Agreed. Ferdinand probably does lack credibility, but surely not as much credibility as saying you were responding to someone incorrectly thinking you had called them something (particularly when that someone didn't actually hear anything). Surely if he did think Ferdinand was incorrectly accusing him of calling him a "black c*nt" he would say "black c*nt? I didn't call you a black c*nt" not "...black c*nt, f*cking knobhead"

I don't disagree with you, but the burden of proof is on the accuser and Ferdinand is the main prosecution witness.  If he lacks credibility and it's a case of he said/he said then it's hard to give a guilty verdict?

I'm no lawyer but you're maybe right in although I don't think Ferdinand's testimony was the key reason for the trial (wasn't it brought because some member of the public complained?) and whilst he is a witness for prosecution, clearly their case seems to rest on the video evidence? At the end of day if there is no witness to a murder but the killer is caught on CCTV then he would be found guilty. Probably someone will pick holes in my logic but interested to hear your thoughts

[tyssam5]

So Terry says he did call Ferdinand a black **** but in his defence it was in the context of saying that he didn't call him a black **** yet Ferdinand says he never heard him calling him anything!

Bizarre alright and Terry's lawyers says Ferdinand lacks credibility

Agreed. Ferdinand probably does lack credibility, but surely not as much credibility as saying you were responding to someone incorrectly thinking you had called them something (particularly when that someone didn't actually hear anything). Surely if he did think Ferdinand was incorrectly accusing him of calling him a "black c*nt" he would say "black c*nt? I didn't call you a black c*nt" not "...black c*nt, f*cking knobhead"

I don't disagree with you, but the burden of proof is on the accuser and Ferdinand is the main prosecution witness.  If he lacks credibility and it's a case of he said/he said then it's hard to give a guilty verdict?

I'm no lawyer but you're maybe right in although I don't think Ferdinand's testimony was the key reason for the trial (wasn't it brought because some member of the public complained?) and whilst he is a witness for prosecution, clearly their case seems to rest on the video evidence? At the end of day if there is no witness to a murder but the killer is caught on CCTV then he would be found guilty. Probably someone will pick holes in my logic but interested to hear your thoughts

It like this, on the CCTV two guys were trying to stab each other. Then they walked awaywith no one really stabbed,and shook hands later. Then one of them comes back and says no my girlfriend says you did in fact stab me.... Something like that. See Ashley Coles testimony on BBC. Terry looks like he'll get off. Also he looks like a racist but there you go.
I called a guy a Mexican **** at soccer one, bit racist I suppose but not the way I meant it really. Cos he was in fact Mexican and at the time he was being a ****.

[mylestheslasher]

Reading what they were saying to each other makes me wonder are they 12 year old stuck in the bodies if men.

[johnneycool]

So Terry says he did call Ferdinand a black **** but in his defence it was in the context of saying that he didn't call him a black **** yet Ferdinand says he never heard him calling him anything!

Bizarre alright and Terry's lawyers says Ferdinand lacks credibility

Agreed. Ferdinand probably does lack credibility, but surely not as much credibility as saying you were responding to someone incorrectly thinking you had called them something (particularly when that someone didn't actually hear anything). Surely if he did think Ferdinand was incorrectly accusing him of calling him a "black c*nt" he would say "black c*nt? I didn't call you a black c*nt" not "...black c*nt, f*cking knobhead"

I don't disagree with you, but the burden of proof is on the accuser and Ferdinand is the main prosecution witness.  If he lacks credibility and it's a case of he said/he said then it's hard to give a guilty verdict?

I'm no lawyer but you're maybe right in although I don't think Ferdinand's testimony was the key reason for the trial (wasn't it brought because some member of the public complained?) and whilst he is a witness for prosecution, clearly their case seems to rest on the video evidence? At the end of day if there is no witness to a murder but the killer is caught on CCTV then he would be found guilty. Probably someone will pick holes in my logic but interested to hear your thoughts

I presume this member of the public heard the exchange, alerted the police and will giving evidence?

[AQMP]

So Terry says he did call Ferdinand a black **** but in his defence it was in the context of saying that he didn't call him a black **** yet Ferdinand says he never heard him calling him anything!

Bizarre alright and Terry's lawyers says Ferdinand lacks credibility

Agreed. Ferdinand probably does lack credibility, but surely not as much credibility as saying you were responding to someone incorrectly thinking you had called them something (particularly when that someone didn't actually hear anything). Surely if he did think Ferdinand was incorrectly accusing him of calling him a "black c*nt" he would say "black c*nt? I didn't call you a black c*nt" not "...black c*nt, f*cking knobhead"

I don't disagree with you, but the burden of proof is on the accuser and Ferdinand is the main prosecution witness.  If he lacks credibility and it's a case of he said/he said then it's hard to give a guilty verdict?

I'm no lawyer but you're maybe right in although I don't think Ferdinand's testimony was the key reason for the trial (wasn't it brought because some member of the public complained?) and whilst he is a witness for prosecution, clearly their case seems to rest on the video evidence? At the end of day if there is no witness to a murder but the killer is caught on CCTV then he would be found guilty. Probably someone will pick holes in my logic but interested to hear your thoughts

Again I don't disagree with you, but it appears that the video evidence is inconclusive as the lip reading expert wasn't able to give a full account of the exchange between Ferdinand and Terry due to other players walking between the cameras and the players.  There were also at least two words which she saw but couldn't make out. 

Yeah, and who is the member of the public??  I seem to remember that it was someone who saw the video and made a complaint later that evening, rather than someone who was in the crowd (I might be wrong on this).

[johnneycool]

So Terry says he did call Ferdinand a black **** but in his defence it was in the context of saying that he didn't call him a black **** yet Ferdinand says he never heard him calling him anything!

Bizarre alright and Terry's lawyers says Ferdinand lacks credibility

Agreed. Ferdinand probably does lack credibility, but surely not as much credibility as saying you were responding to someone incorrectly thinking you had called them something (particularly when that someone didn't actually hear anything). Surely if he did think Ferdinand was incorrectly accusing him of calling him a "black c*nt" he would say "black c*nt? I didn't call you a black c*nt" not "...black c*nt, f*cking knobhead"

I don't disagree with you, but the burden of proof is on the accuser and Ferdinand is the main prosecution witness.  If he lacks credibility and it's a case of he said/he said then it's hard to give a guilty verdict?

I'm no lawyer but you're maybe right in although I don't think Ferdinand's testimony was the key reason for the trial (wasn't it brought because some member of the public complained?) and whilst he is a witness for prosecution, clearly their case seems to rest on the video evidence? At the end of day if there is no witness to a murder but the killer is caught on CCTV then he would be found guilty. Probably someone will pick holes in my logic but interested to hear your thoughts

Again I don't disagree with you, but it appears that the video evidence is inconclusive as the lip reading expert wasn't able to give a full account of the exchange between Ferdinand and Terry due to other players walking between the cameras and the players.  There were also at least two words which she saw but couldn't make out. 

Yeah, and who is the member of the public??  I seem to remember that it was someone who saw the video and made a complaint later that evening, rather than someone who was in the crowd (I might be wrong on this).

So,
Ferdinand never heard Terry calling him a black cúnt, but Ferdinands girlfriend after watching it on TV, thought that he did!, some arsehole with nothing better to do member of the public who may not even have been at the match complained to the police about something they didn't hear on TV? On second thoughts, if any of the crowd had of heard it there probably would have been uproar from them at the time, so obviously the crowd never heard it either!
Terry doesn't deny saying it and those who may have heard it ( A Cole) isn't giving evidence.

So the main evidence against John Terry is Terry himself?

I know the Met are very sensitive about this whole race think after being accused of being institutionally racist, but this is beyond a joke.