Guiseppe Bellusci

[morty]

Has been cleared, at an FA hearing, of racially abusing Cameron Jerome.

 

[Safri15]

Hmmmm. Shame all the details never really get released as Jerome definitely seemed to think something was said/went on. He wasn't very happy at all!

 

[morty]

I have heard "not proven" as opposed to "not guilty"

I think that speaks volumes.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

I remember Ruud Gullit saying something about racial abuse once. He said something along the lines of 'if someone calls me a 'black b*stard' I dont take offence at that - I am black!'

Having had asian youths firing fireworks at my house and shouting 'f*cking white sh*ts' when I was a student in Leeds though I appreciate its not very nice to be singled out by the colour of your skin. Just 'b*stard' if you please...!

We did report it to the police as a racially motivated attack, but they just laughed and said 'but you're white...'  Go figure  :huh:

 

[eatonparkboy]

The 'not proven' verdict allows a jury to find that a case against a defendant is not substantiated where there is reasonable doubt as to guilt, without declaring the defendant innocent.

This is a unique feature of Scottish criminal law, which is not found in most other criminal legal systems.

Apart from that bastion of justice, the English FA. Which of course is an affiliate of that great vanguard of transparency and fair play, FIFA.

 

[Canaryboy]

Should never have even been persued, how much time and money have they spent to determine that it was one persons word against another? Everybody knew that that already.

 

[Safri15]

What really baffles me is the commission have said they believe Jerome has honestly reported on what he heard. So if its one persons word against the other, and they believe Jerome has reported accurately, how can they then say that its not proven? Surely Jerome's truthful report is enough.

Why would anyone make something like this up??

Extremely pleased NCFC have acted and responded very admirably throughout the whole process!!

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

What really baffles me is the commission have said they believe Jerome has honestly reported on what he heard. So if its one persons word against the other, and they believe Jerome has reported accurately, how can they then say that its not proven? Surely Jerome's truthful report is enough.

Why would anyone make something like this up??

Extremely pleased NCFC have acted and responded very admirably throughout the whole process!!

Its not what you know, its what you can prove in court.

Even John Terry tried to deny what he had said, even though we had all repeatedly seen him mouth the words on video evidence

 

[hogesar]

On the other hand, doesn't Jerome have previous in making accusations, and were they not all found not guilty?

 

[ZLF]

It seems it was one persons word against another and while Jerome came out with credit as a credible witness it seems there was not enough (independent) evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt.    

I do think its interesting that it was a not proven rather than not guilty verdict - the latter is clearing the player of all doubt about the charges - the not proven verdict leaves a doubt and is not teh same a clearing the accused.   It suggests that there is a doubt and indicates that they did accept Jeromes evidence - but there was simply not enough to ensure it was a guilty verdict.

 

[Din]

Well it's literally one word against the other, and nobody else heard it so it was never going to be proven. 

Seems extremely odd though that Jerome would just make it up for no reason.

 

[Suffolk Canary]

I think it's pretty obvious by Jerome's reaction that the guy definitely did say something very offensive to him.  It's just that no other player around them heard it, or didn't admit to hearing it.  

You can't blame Jerome for pushing it and trying to get him punished for it. I'm sure if i was in his shoes i would've done the same thing regardless of a lack of evidence.  I'm sure that leeds player will think twice if he does it again. 

 

[morty]

Just read the report, sounds like a load of old nonsense to me.

Not proven indeed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31524796

 

[Beauseant]

Should make the reverse fixture spicy!

 

[Monty13]

What really baffles me is the commission have said they believe Jerome has honestly reported on what he heard. So if its one persons word against the other, and they believe Jerome has reported accurately, how can they then say that its not proven? Surely Jerome's truthful report is enough.

Why would anyone make something like this up??

Extremely pleased NCFC have acted and responded very admirably throughout the whole process!!

Wow, don't let me end up in a court run by you safri15 if a convincing statement of my guilt from one person is enough to convict me!

It's entirely possible that Jerome could have misheard or be a very convincing liar. I'm not suggesting at all that the second one is the case btw! But it's not impossible. You can't find people guilty of anything in any circumstances based on one persons account of what happened, no matter how convincing their testimony!

 

[Din]

Threatened to give him a black eye what a load of crap. 

I'm glad that both the club and Jerome have made it very clear that they're unhappy with this. Bellusci's a very lucky boy I think.

You never know Bellusci could well be telling the truth, but it just appears to me that the FA have found him not guilty to avoid controversy.

I mean this:

Bellusci, 25, was accused of calling Jerome a 'negro' during the 1-1 draw between the sides in October.

But the FA panel accepted he said the word 'nero' in relation to a black eye.

Why would you accept that he actually used a different word to what someone has accused him of saying when there is no-one else to back it up? 

 

[morty]

Threatened to give him a black eye what a load of crap. 

I'm glad that both the club and Jerome have made it very clear that they're unhappy with this. Bellusci's a very lucky boy I think.

You never know Bellusci could well be telling the truth, but it just appears to me that the FA have found him not guilty to avoid controversy.

I mean this:

Why would you accept that he actually used a different word to what someone has accused him of saying when there is no-one else to back it up? 

As I posted on another site :-

"I'm going to give you a black eye"

Said no man ever on a football pitch.

 

[Din]

As I posted on another site :-

"I'm going to give you a black eye"

Said no man ever on a football pitch.

Exactly. It's just laughable.

 

[Monty13]

As I posted on another site :-

"I'm going to give you a black eye"

Said no man ever on a football pitch.

But I bet people have muttered similar threats under their breath when wound up by opposition player on the lines of "I'm going to break your f@ckin legs". But not loud enough to be heard or to be honest I have heard someone tell someone that in a friendly game of five a side! If your speaking in Italian, and it's fair to assume your opponent doesn't speak it, you probably don't care of just saying it straight to his face.

However improbable his story, it's not impossible. We also I imagine have no idea whether on an Italian football pitch that might be uttered, cultures are very different we share a common language with the US and Australia but not a common culture or similar use of all words and phrases.

The thing I find bizarre about this is the fact that the word nero (meaning black) is apparently what Jerome thought he heard him say as negro. If he was saying black in Italian there is a balance of probability that in which case he was just as likely making a racist comment in Italian using the word black derogatorily. But the same defence would still be used and you can't find someone guilty without corroboratory evidence, benefit of the doubt always has to lie with the accused.