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.
Evra claimed the "10 times" thing was a French saying. Comolli was asked about it and said it was a saying but certainly wasn't something you would use in such a serious situation. They decided to ignore Comolli's opinion on it. That's the kind of example of the panel consistantly favouring Evra at every turn.
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.
I won't deny that if this had happened to Everton I would have given any sort of fuck about it and wouldn't have bothered my arse reading it. So I don't really mind when opposition fans side with the panel because I doubt I would have done much different. However, most people will have got their opinion from the papers and despite the fact that the report was released on New Years eve at about five o'clock the next day the papers acted like they had read the whole of the 115 page report and deemed the FA were right. Did they fuck read all that in that time and write articles about it. Nobody questioned any of the panels inconsistancies and just went with the final outcome because it was what they wanted, they got to stick the boot into a foreigner and Blatter about racism. It was a wet dream for most of them. There is a good article on this I read which I'll try to find.