How can Ferdinand and Terry both be credible given that they gave fundamentally radically different accounts of what happened?
Terry was guilty, you can see on his face that he's not shocked or outraged or whatever when he said it. Somehow a cut and dry case has been royally fucked up by the powers that be.
It's complete ineptitude on behalf of the police and the CPS, but they weren't aided at all by Ferdinand. All this bollocks about him being brave, he was slippery and evasive and his evidence was hardly crystal clear. It's not as if he was being asked to be Nelson Mandela, just about everybody in the country supported him and there was clear evidence. All he needed to do was give the police a prompt and concise interview and Terry would have been found guilty.
"Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent" in the strict sense of the word, more "not proven". But it was never going to be with that farcical prosecution case, if it wasn't such a high-profile case it would have been thrown out a while ago. Although I despise both and I'm still in no doubt they were guilty, Redknapp and Terry should never have been made to defend a case with such a scarcity of anything other than unreliable or circumstantial evidence.
My understanding of the law is that you have to have some sort of back up to what you claim and no c**t, even the mobile phone loving judas c**t, has backed up terry's statement that ferdinand made the racist comments first. Ferdinand on the other hand has tv footage which clearly shows terry saying the words "black c**t" so there should be no doubt that the pikey c**t should be found guilty but of course the law being as crooked as it is, that will never happen 
