Originally Posted by The Arseache Kid
Only really Comolli's account was inconsistant but he admitted not fully understanding Suarez's Spanish having learnt 'classical Spanish'. Dalglish was accused of trying to cloud Dowd's judgement because he asked "Hadn't he done this before?" about Evra and abuse accusations. Evra hadn't which the report pointed out. It did not point out however that Evra was found to have given unreliable and inconsistant evidence in an invesitigation into abuse (the Chelsea groundsman one if I remember correctly). This is was Dalglish was referring to. It also shows how Evra had a prior understanding of how the investigation would take place.
Evra's account didn't remain the same but changed several times. At the time and on the pitch he only claimed to have been abused once (and several witness statements agree Evra only made an accusation once). Then afterwards in the interview he claimed he had been abused 10 times. Then this was reduced during the actual investiagtion to around five times. There was also inconsistancy with what he claimed Suarez actually said going from 'n****r' to 'black'. Evra was not consistant at all but with everything the FA came down on his side.
I believe it was Comolli, Kuyt and Dalglish that were all found to give inconsistent reports with Suarez saying they all misunderstood him, then changing his version of events after. That's without trawling through the report now. I think it was also said that Evra's use of 'ten times' was a turn of phrase, rather than an exact thing. Same way as if someone came off the pitch saying 'he kicked a few times'. Again, without checking, that's all on memory and it was a while ago.
Either way, at the time the report came out, most people read it and seemed to consider it fair, and it was only the majority of Liverpool fans who took it as one word against another and the FA believed who they want. It's fan prerogative though, anyone who says they aren't biased towards their club is lying, either to themselves or everyone else.