Every single one of our resident scousers on here have shown themselves up over this issue. I just wish at least one would read the report! Or I suppose could read it
I would need to re-read the relevant sections to be sure - but it seemed to me on later reflection that there is some interesting cross-confirming evidence in there...
Evra reports Suarez as using an unusual form of the 2nd-person pronoun - one which had comment upon it at the hearing and after it. The more usual way of saying 'you' was different to what Evra remembered - but his version, whilst more unusual, was stated to be possible. Obviously the verb was conjugated appropriately.
In the original Comolli report in the ref's room he used the same 'unusual' form of expressing the meaning to recount what was actually said by Suarez. He also, independently, confirmed the overall sentence to effectively translate as 'Because you are black' - at that time. That 'overall meaning' was the same that Kuyt originally reported from his conversation with Suarez in Dutch. (Obviously they were asked to change their stories later).
That the original versions were correct (and Suarez was lying when he later changed it) was confirmed not just by the fact that the 2 separate conversations in different languages had produced the same version of the account Suarez gave - and also by it matching Evra's testimony - but also by the fact that both Comolli and Evra gave the same 'unusual' usage as the spanish spoken by Suarez.
Evra, Comolli, and Kuyt all confirm both what was said, and (2 out of 3) how it was said. Yet scousers reckon the panel had no reason to disbelieve Suarez's modified account.
...
Then there's the 'conciliatory pinching' (which counsel had to retract) - Kuyt's fictional account of what Evra had said to the ref (it didn't match the accounts given by Evra and the ref - which dovetailed), etc, etc.
Wonder if Greggy can manage to read that? If he's still peddling the 'previous' line he hasn't followed much of the discussion here tbh.
