Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

SantryRed wrote: »

Have you read the report??

Even the first few pages. Because if you did you would realise this post makes no sense.

Do elaborate my unbiased friend.

greendom wrote: »

What about Commoli's and Kuyt's comments that they believed Suarez said to them "Because you are black" ?

"because you are black" no it was "you are black" in response to being called a south amercian.

greendom wrote: »

What about Commoli's and Kuyt's comments that they believed Suarez said to them "Because you are black" ?

Well Evra believed that Suarez called him a n*gger, then later accepted the word meant black. Plenty lost in translation. Inconsistancies and inaccurate translations galore!!

Kess73 wrote: »

Given that I already said in my reply that I knew that this was a civil case and not a criminal one, you are not telling me something I don't know already. No offence.


I am simply saying that there is a big difference between solid quantifiable evidence and the balance of probabilities.

People on here keep saying that there is evidence that proves this and evidence that proves that.

There isn't actual evidence that is conclusive in proving each assertion in the case. But given that it is a civil case a verdict can be reached without actual conclusive evidence, as you know of course, so people talking as if there is some concrete evidence to point at that is undisputable in terms of it sealing the case or that it proves without doubt that Suarez defo said any of the other six claimed comments are wrong.

Do you think evra decided to pluck the allegations out of thin air because he didn't win the toss of the coin?

SantryRed wrote: »

United had no involvement in the case

There was no statements from utd so, no witness statements.

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe those saying the police should charge should set out why they think Suarez racially abused Evra, beyond reasonable doubt?

I'd love Evra to report Suarez, cos he's the only one who could. But let's face it, he won't!!

Ordinary man wrote: »

Do you think evra decided to pluck the allegations out of thin air because he didn't win the toss of the coin?

What? What the hell does that have to do with anything I said? Or are you just running down the tired old route of thinking that every Liverpool supporter must blame Evra for everything?

If you look back you will see that not once in this thread have I mentioned anything about Evra and the coin toss nor do I think the retarded suggestion that the coin toss made Evra say things holds any water.

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Keep thinking that. Regardless of whether you were right or wrong, Liverpool FC and all it concerns have come out of this as a laughing stock in the eyes of anyone not connected with them. Look at any football forum for proof. The FA has actually been praised in many sections

I truly hope Evra reports Suarez to the police. Let's face it, Luis should be charged!! So come on Patrice, you went mental for a reason. Report him to the police!

Kess73 wrote: »

If you look back you will see that not once in this thread have I mentioned anything about Evra and the coin toss nor do I think the retarded suggestion that the coin toss made Evra say things holds any water.

Lucky I never made that suggestion.

Blatter wrote: »

OK Kess you seemed to have got hung up on my use of the word 'evidence'.

I had presumed that people would know that I was talking about the circumstantial evidence used to find that he had used the word negro 6 times in the goalmouth and not direct evidence.

However, my argument with Mr Alan was, that the presence of this circumstantial evidence is enough to say it's simply not a case of one man's word against another.

The thing is that is does boil down to one man's version of event against another man's version, or one man's word against another's if you like.

The circumstantial evidence in this case is not strong at all, and the FA's own assertion that Evra's interviews were more convincing that those of Suarez does suggest that the tipping point was indeed how one man's words were taking over another's.

At this point it is just becoming a case of splitting hairs, and the fact I have one knuckledragger sending me PMs now about how I am a typical shameful Liverpool supporter saying Suarez is innocent (funny given that I never said Suarez was innocent or that Evra was lying), has me losing interest quickly in debating stuff in this thread

sorry Kenny, but if you can't say what you want to say, then you really shouldn't say anything.

i can't believe nobody has told him that yet.

i commend the want to support your player, i really do, it's part of why i love my club, but the more he speaks without being "able to say what he wants to say", that being what he deems to be the full extent of the hearing, then he really should let it be.

that's my issue with this whole thing from Liverpool's point of view. my only issue when it comes down to it. just shhh. do your talking behind the scenes, and the shítstorm wouldn't have been a tenth of the size it is now.

Kess73 wrote: »

There is a difference between reaching a verdict based on probability and reaching a verdict based on quantifiable evidence that proves the critical facts of the case to the highest possible level of certainty.

I know that the case was a civil one and not a criminal one, and as such it is can be decided on the balance of probabilities rather than what would be deemed actual hard evidence.

My point is that this case was decided on that balance of probabilities, and the FA state this in the report, rather than actual evidence. So when you kept saying that there was evidence and asking if Alan refuted that evidence, I simply asked you to list the actual evidence you were talking about rather than anything that was decided on the balance of probabilities. Other than what Suarez admitted to, you cannot and neither can I or anyone else on here.

Apologies for stating this bluntly, and further apologies if I'm isunderstanding you, but this doesn't make a huge amount of sense. You can't say that a case is decided on the balance of probabilities rather than actual evidence. That, as a phrase, just doesn't make sense. "Actual evidence" and "the balance of probabilities" aren't terms that can be equivocated or compared, but you seem to be doing that. One is a type of evidence, the other an accepted level of proof to allow a legal arbiter to make a decision. I think you're saying that "actual evidence" (a term I by which I assume you mean something that isn't oral testimony) is needed to elevate a verdict beyond the balance of probabilites. That by introducing "actual evidence", a judgement no longer becomes probabilistic. This isn't quite true though.

The fact of the matter is that pretty much every judgement ever made, in any court, at any level of proof, is probabilistic. I could ask you to name any form of proof which can be absolutely irrefutably used to convict someone, but that's not possible (the exception being an admission). The strongest of the currently used forensic sciences, for example, DNA, can still only increase the probability of a given scenario to such a level that an arbiter can believe a story to be true beyond a certain level of certainty. (It can, however, be used to to show irrefutably that a scenario didn't happen. It is, at its strongest, exclusionary evidence.)

But that's a bit of a tangent. What I'm trying to get at is that every type of evidence simply increases or decreases the chance of a scenario's likelihood. That's all evidence can do. The law has developed levels of surety at which it is generally accepted that a legal arbiter can make a decision. Evidence is produced to attempt to show that a given scenario has a likelihood of occurrence above this accepted level.

In this case, heard by a quasi judicial body, the evidence adduced was sufficient that the arbiter was able to find that a particular scenario was more likely to be true than not. It wasn't decided on probability instead of evidence, the evidence was used to inform a probabilistic outcome. And at the end of the day that's just how the law works. It's really not fair on the FA to say that actual evidence wasn't used. It may not be the strongest form of evidence in the world, but oral testimony has a long and proud tradition in common law, and it's use, in combination with Suarez's own admission and video evidence, is rightly (from a legal perspective) enough to inform a probabilistic statement that a scenario is more likely to have happened than not.

As something of an aside, if this case does give rise in anyone to an actual interest in things like the law of evidence or jurisprudence, I would suggest having a look at some scholarly work on forensic sciences and probability (try stuff by AP Broeders, Michael Saks, David Faigman, Bruce Budowle, Simon Cole or David Stoney). While not directly relevant to this case, as they mostly deal with forensic identification evidence, they are interesting to read on the idea of statistical probability and the law of evidence. For those without access to academic databases, googling for articles might throw up some interesting stuff, try searches like "bayesian statistics and the law" or something. Furthermore, "Liverpool fans" (yeah I went there) are getting some stick for cynicism towards a legal(ish) finding, and the effects of evidence presentation etc. I was reminded of the theories of American legal realism, in particular the work of Jerome Frank. Looking into his writings would definitely be interesting if anyone has come away from the case with something of a jaded view of how legal arbiters reach decisions.

That ended up being a different post than I intended. Kess, I'm not trying to antagonise you, but I do think you're misconceiving the interrelationship of evidence, probability and standards of proof a bit, and I hope I've offered a somewhat lucid (I know this post doesn't flow all that well) explanation of where I think you went wrong.