Reasons why Terry will and won’t be found guilty

Why Terry won’t be found guilty

– The defence argue John Terry was merely repeating back what Anton Ferdinand said to him. Terry argues he heard Ferdinand accusing him of calling Ferdinand a “black cunt”. Defence also suggest that Terry could have misheard “Bridge” as “black”.
– The defence painted Ferdinand as an unreliable witness.
– Lip-reading is not a science.
– There’s no direct evidence from any witness as to what Terry actually said or how he said it apart from Terry himself.
– Ashley Cole’s evidence supports Terry’s claim that Ferdinand said “black”
– Several character witnesses support defence’s argument that Terry has endured abuse on and off the football pitch for years but has never snapped and remains calm.
– Defence argue that there is a “danger” in trying to interpret body language (in response to argument that Terry doesn’t look “surprised” by what Ferdinand said, but “hostile”).
– Terry claimed he was aware there were cameras on him so if he wanted to racially abuse someone he would whisper it in their ear.
– Terry plays for a football club with players of different races from around the world and as captain, it is his role to integrate them in to the club. He has worked with Didier Drogba and Marcel Desailly’s charities that help Africa.

Why Terry will be found guilty

– Ferdinand says he did not accuse Terry of a racial slur on the pitch. How could Terry be repeating “black cunt” if Ferdinand never said it?
– The prosecution argue that Ferdinand doesn’t have the sophistication or motivation to invent a false accusation.
– The lip-reading experts gave the opinion that Terry said “you fucking black cunt (pause) you fucking knobhead” which is not a question, or repetition, but an insult.
– Terry used the word “you” in his first statement about what he said to Ferdinand. “You black cunt.” This then changed to “a fucking black cunt?”.
– The prosecution argue that if Terry was merely repeating back what Ferdinand said, why did he add an extra “fucking” in to what he said?
– The prosecution argue that Terry was using what he perceived as a vulnerability to insult Ferdinand in response to Ferdinand insulting him about “shagging his mate’s missus”. In the same game, Terry called QPR goalkeeper a “fat cunt” so used the first description of Ferdinand that came to mind when calling him a “black cunt”.
– Prosecution argue that in the video footage Terry doesn’t look “surprised” when he is responding to Ferdinand but “hostile”. In response to the defence claiming there is a “danger” in trying to interpret body language, the judge said: “But we do it all the time.”
– Cole was 25 yards away when he claims to see Ferdinand say “black”. If the defence want evidence from lip-reading experts who’ve had the benefit of video replay to be discounted, how can Cole’s evidence taken from a football game be relied upon?
– Prosecution agree that Terry is not guilty of being a racist but is guilty of making a racist remark.