- Joined
- May 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,726
- Likes
- 660
- Favorite Player
- Vieri*
![](/img/squad/29.png)
![](/img/awards/Forum Supporter.png)
![](/img/awards/10 years of FIF.png)
As much as this saga pissed me off. I’m ultimately glad that this is swiftly over with, now we can focus on the next match.
What you mean: if there is not enough evidence...? Of course that there is not enough evidence, because he is innocent. 22 players and 3 referee and nobody heard anything insulting.I won’t exactly welcome him back with open arms, as this entirely fall because of the lack of substantial enough evidence to convict him.
In reality he could still have said it, but when it’s word against word truth will likely never be known to the public. The biggest question is still how the players in our squad welcome him.
But he better keep that mouth of his shut for the rest of the season… not one word neither on or off the pitch it needs to stat permanently closed.
Thank God the persecutor didn't fuck Acerbi thing. Acerbi is a good footballer and a good man, good example. he doesn't deserve this injustice treatment.Acerbi should read this thread. I expect him to play soon.
What you mean: if there is not enough evidence...? Of course that there is not enough evidence, because he is innocent. 22 players and 3 referee and nobody heard anything insulting.
The verdict from the judge was that the accusation couldn't be backed up by any evidence, thus, Acerbi is innocent because he wasn't proven guilty. It's really, really fucking easy.No he isn’t innocent, that isn’t the verdict. You like all the rest don’t know what was said, Acerbi admitted that he said something, and no one can back up what he said either, no one can even back up something was said. So we are back at that it is words against words, this is really the only thing we can say… you can then choose what you believe was said, but that is belief not fact.
So no it ain’t disproven that Acerbi said something discriminating, just that it cannot be backed by other evidence.
The situation is largely unchanged, it’s fundamentally the worst possible outcome, because it falls on not enough evidence, meaning it’s up to everyone to make their own judgment, this will cling to him for a long time.
No matter how you look at it, it still leaves a bad aftertaste.
Does not matter what you believe. This is not something you like or not. If there is no proof of a crime, than there is no crime. I believe that I am better player than Messi, but I can not prove that. I believe that I am most handsome man on this planet, but my wife said that I am not. So, I can go on and on...Do you have any clue how much noise there is on a stadium, you can easily make an insult to someone without other is able to hear it, especially if they aren’t paying much attention, which they likely won’t as so much shit is said among players.
No he isn’t innocent, that isn’t the verdict. You like all the rest don’t know what was said, Acerbi admitted that he said something, and no one can back up what he said either, no one can even back up something was said. So we are back at that it is words against words, this is really the only thing we can say… you can then choose what you believe was said, but that is belief not fact.
So no it ain’t disproven that Acerbi said something discriminating, just that it cannot be backed by other evidence.
The situation is largely unchanged, it’s fundamentally the worst possible outcome, because it falls on not enough evidence, meaning it’s up to everyone to make their own judgment, this will cling to him for a long time.
Even the Judge believed more in JJ from all I read so far….
No one will care about this after 1-2 matches go by.
Most people don't care about it as it is now...
Does not matter what you believe. This is not something you like or not. If there is no proof of a crime, than there is no crime. I believe that I am better player than Messi, but I can not prove that. I believe that I am most handsome man on this planet, but my wife said that I am not. So, I can go on and
Stop alreadyAbsence of evidence is not equal evidence of absence. So the inability to produce sufficient evidence of a crime/offence does not equal that no crime/offence exists; it only means that crime may or may not be charged or prosecuted.
Precisely this.Absence of evidence is not equal evidence of absence. So the inability to produce sufficient evidence of a crime/offence does not equal that no crime/offence exists; it only means that crime may or may not be charged or prosecuted.