Guilty until proven innocent.

[jimsmith 224]

The persecution of Chris Cairns over alleged match fixing.

The way this is being put forward in the media sucks the big one. This man is being convicted in the public's eyes due to media coverage. In an age of P.C bullshit how is any man's integrity and reputation allowed to be torn to pieces and crapped on in the public eye before the trial is over? 

I assumed sub judice comes into play with high profile court cases?

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment", means that a particular case or matter is under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers.

In England and Wales, Ireland, New Zealand,Australia, South Africa, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Canada,Sri Lanka and Israel it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active.

.......................

 

In today's media reports Chris Cairns is being described as a very arrogant man who feels he is above the law. How can statements like that be permitted to be released by the media? Yes he will get the opportunity to defend himself but even if he's found innocent you will now have a percentage of the population believing Cairns is a very arrogant man. How is that acceptable?

They are talking about an iconic New Zealander in Brendon McCullum going to give damning evidence against Chris Cairns. That is so wrong as McCullum is a hero in the eyes of many Kiwi's and there will be an assumption by a percentage of people that if McCullum says Cairns told him to match fix and how everyone is doing it,well it must be true. It's almost akin to Sir Ed Hillary if he was still with us being quoted as saying Bill Jones told him he was a kiddy fiddler. Oh well if Sir Ed said it then it must be true.

How do we know what Cairns really said to McCullum? Maybe he warned his team mate to watch out for the scum bags who try and rope you into match fixing. Maybe Cairns told him he was shocked at how much match fixing was going on? Perhaps McCullum misunderstood Cairns. Maybe he didn't. Maybe Cairns is a bloody cheat like so many others who play cricket in the subcontinent. Whatever the case may be it's sucks to be quoting a man before he has even spoken especially if his words are being used to condemn another man.

If McCullum is giving damning evidence against Cairns then why? What is his motivation to see another ex colleague boiled in oil? Has McCullum got nothing better to do? He and Cairns were both very aggressive batsmen and fiercely competitive players. People pay for their entry hoping they get to see McCullum turn it on. Prior to him Chris Cairns had the same effect on ticket buyers. Prior to Chris Cairns it was his father Lance who ticket buyers hoped to catch on the right day. I don't know the dynamic between McCullum and Cairns. Is there any bad blood from something else? Who knows.

I never gambled a $ on the bullshit Indian Premier League. How can you expect a player being paid big bucks from Sydney to play for  Chennai Super Kings to lay down in traffic for that team? It's all about players and ex players wanting to milk as much cash as possible out of cricket before calling it a day. With that back drop and the fact it's being played in a place people sell their own mother for 200 Rupees you have the perfect setting for corruption. Did Cairns agree to hit the third ball of the over for six? Did he agree to bowl the first ball as a wide? The fact dickheads can even bet on those shonky options says it all anyway. Just as an aside what would Brendon McCullum have been paying to get out for zero in the first over of the 2015 Cricket World Cup Final?

There is something clearly hidden from view in the trial of Chris Cairns. I've seen murderers and terrorists pursued with less ferocity than Chris Cairns has been pursued. Is this trial more about someone who does not like to lose seeking all out revenge against Cairns? Did previous dismissals of so called evidence humiliate the chaser? Is the chaser motivated enough to pay for the right verdict?

I recall when Chris Cairns lost his sister in a tragic railway crossing accident. I thought the road ahead would be very difficult for the family but this was not something I ever thought he'd be fighting.

I hate cheats full stop. I wish there was no cheating in horse racing or in sport but the sad reality is cheating has always been around and always will be. If the evidence put forward this time around convicts Cairns will the world be a better place? Will cheating continue on it's merry way in sports and racing?

I'd love to see cheating totally wiped out but there is as much chance of that as there is of Santa buying the South Island for me this Christmas. I'd also love the media to shut the fark up about anything and everything to do with this trial until they reach a verdict.

If he's found guilty I'm sure the appeals will go on for another 25 years. If he's found not guilty I'd like the media in both England and NZ to compensate Cairns with many millions of dollars for loss of reputation etc etc etc. I'd also like to see the revengeful bastard at the head of persecuting Cairns to have his nose rubbed in the shite the same way he's done to Cairns.  

Lou Vincent was a low life cheat. He's had his arse kicked and will never play cricket again. Cairns retired years ago. If he was involved in the 9.11 plot then fair enough but some perspective would be helpful.

[Ashoka 1,179]

jimsmith...

I disagree vehemently with the content of your posting and your inappropriate and disgusting use of Sir Edmund HIllary's name is beyond contempt.

The references you make are simply the press quoting what was said in court. The press always does this, has the right to do this and needs to keep doing this if the press is serve it's actual purpose.

Mr Cairns is getting his day in court. He has the opportunity of defending himself and clearing his name. You statement presumes that Cairns is innocent and the victim of a witch hunt. I believe that nothing could be further from the truth, but time and the evidence presented in the formal context of a trial will. eventually, provide a clearer picture.

Cheers.

Ashoka

[jimsmith 224]

jimsmith...

I disagree vehemently with the content of your posting and your inappropriate and disgusting use of Sir Edmund HIllary's name is beyond contempt.

The references you make are simply the press quoting what was said in court. The press always does this, has the right to do this and needs to keep doing this if the press is serve it's actual purpose.

Mr Cairns is getting his day in court. He has the opportunity of defending himself and clearing his name. You statement presumes that Cairns is innocent and the victim of a witch hunt. I believe that nothing could be further from the truth, but time and the evidence presented in the formal context of a trial will. eventually, provide a clearer picture.

Cheers.

Ashoka

Inappropriate and disgusting? Get over yourself man. 

Sir Ed is a respected national icon. Could you tell me a Kiwi of his stature today? Dame Susan Devoy perhaps? I don't think so. What about Sir Willie Apiata? I would have used him as an example but I'm sure some prize tosser would then accuse me of glorifying war.

It's all very well "just reporting" what is said in court but where is the balance? All we have heard today is how arrogant Chris Cairns is and how he believes he is above the law. That is a very damning accusation. What damage is done by it? Lets say you were charged with a serious offence and it was blasted all over the media what a precious upstart you are and how you are confident that you're above the law. How would you feel? Would those feelings being even stronger if you were a man of integrity who's just had your reputation dragged through the mud? 

My comparison of Sir Ed to  Brendon McCullum is not as out there as you claim. Sir Ed enjoyed his status but lets not get too carried away. He was the first to climb Everest. Huge achievement that has been repeated since by hundreds of other climbers. He was a great man but he didn't find the cure to cancer. 

McCullum is seen by many as a national hero regardless of what you think. He took the country on a magnificent journey that most of us will never forget. His leadership was inspiring. So refreshing that our hero's are not members of a boy band. Having a national hero testify against you is huge and potentially a deal breaker. Even before McCullum has uttered a word we are being told of his damning "evidence" against Cairns.

If Cairns is guilty then hang him out to dry AFTER but the reporting of this case is flat out wrong. The charges themselves reek of revenge.

Happy for you to disagree with me even to the point of doing so "vehemently" but save the precious high and mighty emotive bs for your sermon on Sunday the very Reverend Ashoka.

Yes I presume Cairns is innocent. That is how our system works oh precious one. Innocent until proven guilty. He's been found innocent previously. As for a witch hunt. For certain. As I said previously this reeks of revenge. They have gone after Cairns with more vigor than some murderers and terrorists have been pursued. How do you explain that Ashoka? A witch hunt sounds about right to me.  

[Ashoka 1,179]

jimsmith...

The reason that what is being reported is negative to Mr Cairns is because, at the moment, it is the prosecution that is holding the floor. This seems to have escaped you. Invoking the name of a national icon beyond reproach (and that is Mr Hillary's status) in such a manner is not just disrespectful but also disgusting, in my opinion.

Your tendency to demonise and trivialise those who disagree with your opinions is now tedious, tiresome and, in my opinion, self-defeating. If you need to resort to this kind of defence of a person you appear to think highly of, then it seems that you cannot be sure of your case.

Regards.

Ashoka

[hooters 12]

so your suggesting everybody else is lying and Chris Cairns is innocent- lets see what comes out at the trial.

 

[Uriah Heap 481]

If McCullum is giving damning evidence against Cairns then why? What is his motivation to see another ex colleague boiled in oil? Has McCullum got nothing better to do? He and Cairns were both very aggressive batsmen and fiercely competitive players. People pay for their entry hoping they get to see McCullum turn it on. Prior to him Chris Cairns had the same effect on ticket buyers. Prior to Chris Cairns it was his father Lance who ticket buyers hoped to catch on the right day. I don't know the dynamic between McCullum and Cairns. Is there any bad blood from something else? Who knows.

 

 

From my understanding, I don't think McCullum was ever keen to give his "damning evidence" in Court. This has been forced upon him by circumstances. 

First by Cairns taking Modi to Court for saying he was a "matchfixer". With the benefit of hindsight, Cairns may have been best to let this slur slide through to the Keeper. Had he done so I feel many NZ's would have dismissed it as the rantings of an untrustworthy man and Cairns would be a cricket commentator for Sky right now. By taking Modi to Court and even worse, by winning in Court, Cairns has made a powerful enemy of a man with much money and time on his hands. Modi clearly feel Cairn's was a "matchfixer" and was never about to let it lie.

Second - Someone leaked McCullum's statement to the ICC, made prior to this Court case. McCullum was told this statement would remain confidential. McCullum may have been naive, but I don't think he ever felt this statement would be made public, let alone bring him to Court to testify against Cairns.

My feeling is that the "bad blood" between Cairns and McCullum stems from McCullum feeling Cairns asked him to fix cricket matches in return for payment.

I believe that further on in the trial, Cairn's legal team will look to besmirch McCullum's character and question his motivation. This will be reported in the media and we will all be able to weigh up what has been said and arrive at an opinion.

[jimsmith 224]

jimsmith...

The reason that what is being reported is negative to Mr Cairns is because, at the moment, it is the prosecution that is holding the floor. This seems to have escaped you. Invoking the name of a national icon beyond reproach (and that is Mr Hillary's status) in such a manner is not just disrespectful but also disgusting, in my opinion.

Your tendency to demonise and trivialise those who disagree with your opinions is now tedious, tiresome and, in my opinion, self-defeating. If you need to resort to this kind of defence of a person you appear to think highly of, then it seems that you cannot be sure of your case.

Regards.

Ashoka

Always fascinating to read somebody who describes another persons input as tedious and tiresome. Ironically I note you have liked many of my messages so what does that make you? A hypocrite? Ironically I wasn't even aware of your existence. I've since read through some of your messages and understand why. You bring new meaning to the words precious and boring. If ever I suffer from serious insomnia I intend coming on here and reading a couple of your messages. I confident predict I will quickly be no longer suffering from the infliction.

You may not believe this but Sir Ed was just a man. There have been many to come before him and since who's achievements at the very least equal his but due to them not being the first they get little if any recognition. Sir Ed was a great friend to the impoverished people of Nepal. He was a wonderful man but just a man. He was not a god and comparing other distinguished and respected New Zealanders with him is not the disgusting crime you get on your soap box and pretend it to be just to appear serene like yourself. Pathetic.

As for the trial. If they want to report actual evidence provided as "news" then so be it. Since when has Chris Cairns being an extremely arrogant man who firmly believes he is above the law evidence? It is a slanderous,revengeful and vindictive personal attack against a man who has previously been cleared of this same match fixing. 

Decisions in courts can easily be influenced to achieve the wrong result. O J Simpson was found not guilty of cutting his ex wife Nicole's throat and that of her friend Mr Goldman. Very few people actually believe Simpson was innocent but the 12 members of that jury were convinced / manipulated / influenced into finding the incorrect verdict. 

Lets just paint a picture here for you. The Police have charged you with dishonesty related offences. In your trial well known figures such as Sir Richard Hadlee & Dame Susan Devoy gave evidence against you saying you told them you had committed the offences you are charged with yet a plumber and a painter also gave evidence and stated they knew you well and were 100% certain you would NEVER commit such crimes and certainly wouldn't tell the well known figures you had. Who will the jury be more influenced by? If you think the plumber and painter then you have rocks in your head as well as sanctimonious fluff. 

By the time Cairns gives his evidence the world will be convinced he's an extremely arrogant man. Even if found innocent that will stay in the minds of many. As the old saying goes "if you throw enough shit on the wall some of it will stick" 

[jimsmith 224]

so your suggesting everybody else is lying and Chris Cairns is innocent- lets see what comes out at the trial.

 

I'm suggesting he is innocent until proven guilty. As for lying. You may find this incredibly hard to believe but people lie in court every day. I attended a court case in Auckland several years ago. I witnessed the actual events that unfolded and the actions of the Police. In court I also witnessed seven sworn and respected Police Officers including a senior sergeant put their hands on the good book and swear to tell the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For the rest of that day every one of those Police Officers spent the day lying through their teeth about almost every aspect of the incident.

Regardless of what comes out of this trial I'm convinced of two things.

1) The trial and charges etc are fully motivated by nothing less than pure naked revenge. Justice has fark all to do with this trial.

2) Many people around the world will now believe Chris Cairns is an extremely arrogant man who is convinced he's above the law. Why? Because they adamantly claimed that in court and the media has reported this as evidence. 

 

For the record. Who is "everybody else?" At the time I posted my initial message "everybody else" was just the Police Prosecutor on behalf of one revengeful and powerful man who felt humiliated by losing in court previously to Chris Cairns.

[jimsmith 224]

If you need to resort to this kind of defence of a person you appear to think highly of, then it seems that you cannot be sure of your case.

Regards.

Ashoka

What makes you assume I think highly of Chris Cairns? I don't know the man at all. I enjoyed his aggressive batting style especially when hitting the Aussies back over their heads. I'm old enough to have really enjoyed his father Lance doing exactly the same thing. I also really enjoyed McCullums similar batting style.

In this court case it seems as if the engine is all about the REVENGE of a powerful man who hated losing to Cairns in court previously and felt humiliated. That is totally the wrong motivation in my opinion. 

I also despise the very personal attack on Cairns personality etc and passing that off as truthful facts. That kind of attack is extremely damaging.

I'd be saying exactly the same thing regardless of who the person was being attacked in this manner.  Persecution should not be permitted in any courts regardless of the wealth of the man doing the persecuting. 

[Ashoka 1,179]

jimsmith...

Sir Edmund Hillary is about as close to a human saint as a human can get, in my opinion. His achievements are universally recognised and, despite all the publicity surrounding this man, I have yet to see anything materially negative said or printed about him. The fact that he eschewed fame and fortune while continuing to do good work speaks for itself. To see you associate Sir Edmund with something that is absolutely reprehensible for no reason at all demeans you in my eyes. You have a habit of making "over the top" comments when someone simply dares to suggest that you may not be correct in the opinion that you have proffered.

I am happy that you will no longer pay attention to my opinions. You are, now, in my opinion, a disgusting individual of strictly limited intelligence.

I have liked a number of your posts and I have no doubt that I will like further posts that you make. Nobody is always right or always wrong. The fact that this obvious fact escapes you does your arguments no credit whatsoever.However, in considering your future posts, I will have to factor in the fact that, in my opinion, you are arrogant, insensitive and lack the ability to civilly discuss serious matters. That is a shame but I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Regards.

Ashoka

[jimsmith 224]

jimsmith...

Sir Edmund Hillary is about as close to a human saint as a human can get, in my opinion. His achievements are universally recognised and, despite all the publicity surrounding this man, I have yet to see anything materially negative said or printed about him. The fact that he eschewed fame and fortune while continuing to do good work speaks for itself. To see you associate Sir Edmund with something that is absolutely reprehensible for no reason at all demeans you in my eyes. You have a habit of making "over the top" comments when someone simply dares to suggest that you may not be correct in the opinion that you have proffered.

I am happy that you will no longer pay attention to my opinions. You are, now, in my opinion, a disgusting individual of strictly limited intelligence.

I have liked a number of your posts and I have no doubt that I will like further posts that you make. Nobody is always right or always wrong. The fact that this obvious fact escapes you does your arguments no credit whatsoever.However, in considering your future posts, I will have to factor in the fact that, in my opinion, you are arrogant, insensitive and lack the ability to civilly discuss serious matters. That is a shame but I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Regards.

Ashoka

You reach for descriptions like "disgusting individual with strictly limited intelligence" for a person who dared not to see the wonderful Sir Ed Hillary as a saint like figure and in the same breath talk about my over the top comments.  Then you sign off with "regards". What a prize nob you really are. Safe bet you are a very sad lonely little man who spends his days and nights looking for hairs to split while the rest of us live this thing called life. The next time you are feeling sorry for yourself (later tonight) and wondering why your wife left you for the coal man and you are friendless in this world just come and read this thread. Salvation for Ashoka lies within.

[Uriah Heap 481]

How's your boy Chris Cairns fairing of late Jim Smith. Thought these lyrics might sum up your feelings on the matter.

And the newspapers they all went along for the ride

How can the life of such a man

Be in the palm of some fools hand

To see him obviously framed

Couldn't help you feel ashamed to live in a land

Where justice is a game.

[Uriah Heap 481]

Now Cairn's Brief is having a crack at that great NZ cricketer Daniel Vetori. 

It's a disgrace. 

[jimsmith 224]

I agree,it's looking bleak for Cairns. His lawyer is having a crack at everyone else which is always a lame defence. I stand by my call that a man should not be hanged before the trial was over but Cairns was never my boy so i'm not standing by him. That aside all we've been hearing about is the prosecution side so it was never going to sound good for Cairns lately. His lawyer may be able to create enough doubt. Who knows.  Have you noticed the bold way Cairns walks into court? All the witnesses seem to amble in with partners holding their hands barring B.M.  Cairns is either confident he has something up his sleeve or he's a turkey voting for an early Christmas.

[Uriah Heap 481]

On 08/10/2015, 14:05:27, jimsmith said:

 

 That is so wrong as McCullum is a hero in the eyes of many Kiwi's and there will be an assumption by a percentage of people that if McCullum says Cairns told him to match fix and how everyone is doing it,well it must be true.

How do we know what Cairns really said to McCullum?  

If McCullum is giving damning evidence against Cairns then why? What is his motivation to see another ex colleague boiled in oil? Has McCullum got nothing better to do? He and Cairns were both very aggressive batsmen and fiercely competitive players. People pay for their entry hoping they get to see McCullum turn it on. Prior to him Chris Cairns had the same effect on ticket buyers.

I don't know the dynamic between McCullum and Cairns. Is there any bad blood from something else? Who knows.

.Just as an aside what would Brendon McCullum have been paying to get out for zero in the first over of the 2015 Cricket World Cup Final?

 

HOpe you are continuing to enjoy the trial Jim Smith. Cairns sounded a bit wishy washy last night when the blow torch was turned up a notch.

You asked alot of questions about Brendon McCullum back on 8 October. You alluded to McCullum having poor recall, merely mischief making, being jealous of Cairn's reputation, having bad blood with Cairns, and possibly match fixing in the recent World Cup Final.

I feel you completely misjudged Chris Cairn's and  Brendon McCullum's characters. The more this trial proceeds the more I am convinced of that.

[jimsmith 224]

Chris Cairns overcomes pain to walk away a free man after not guilty verdict.

A floppy-haired match-winner on the cricket field, in retirement Chris Cairns has proved unbeatable in court, even if personal pain and financial injury have blighted his latest achievement.

Cairns, 45, emerged from the dowdy Southwark Crown Court on Monday morning (local time) a free man, not guilty of having lied under oath in his previous London court outing, his 2012 libel trial win against wealthy Indian businessman Lalit Modi.

Modi had in 2010 tweeted Cairns had been excluded from the Indian Premier League (IPL) auction due to his "past record of match fixing". Cairns, who had no record of match fixing, took legal action.

Having slogged Modi out of the park, Cairns was able to keep the might of the British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) from knocking over his stumps, when it alleged his statement in court that he had "never" cheated at cricket was a lie.

He was not guilty of perjury, nor of perverting the course of justice by seeking a false witness statement from confessed match-fixer Lou Vincent.

The trial win came at a high cost for the cricketer though, who speaking from the courthouse steps afterwards, described his reputation as "scorched and burnt". 

The son of Kiwi cricket folk hero Lance Cairns, an outlandishly talented player with bat and ball, a square-jawed chiselled adonis, he will have no criminal black mark against his name, yet mud slung and his efforts to wash it away have taken a toll.

In a trial lasting nearly two months, the investigative might of the Metropolitan Police and the persuasive power of the CPS were unable to convince the jury Cairns was a cricket cheat and, thus, a liar under oath.

Cairns sat in a glass box dock week-in, week-out as late summer turned to early winter, watching his old cricketing friends come and go, each casting shadows on his innocence. Outside court he ran the gauntlet of news and television cameras at both ends of the day.

Cricket stars aligned against him - one New Zealand captain in Brendon McCullum, another in Daniel Vettori, former Australia skipper Ricky Ponting, New Zealand cricket boss David White, and former Black Caps Shane Bond, Kyle Mills, Andre Adams, Chris Harris and Lou Vincent. All were prosecution witnesses.

Crowds came to court to see the show, with Kiwis on OE or in London for the Rugby World Cup spilling out of the public gallery into the already crowded press box, where journalists from New Zealand and Britain sat with typing fingers poised.

McCullum was a popular draw card, so was Ponting. So was Cairns. He could still draw a crowd. The morning he was due to testify there was a queue outside the courtroom, featuring more jandals, board shorts, silver ferns and dodgy haircuts than Southwark Crown Court had seen since it started dispensing justice in 1983.

In the end, the jury of seven women and five men did not accept the case against Cairns, so he walked from court free, but into the remnants of a life that once had him standing atop the world, celebrated across the globe as one of the best all-rounders to play the game.

Now a civil suit looms, as Modi seeks his money back, revenge and to save face.

As a cricketer, Cairns was often really something special. A short single over 15 years ago he was celebrating smashing New Zealand to its only International Cricket Council (ICC) one-day world title, with an outlandish century against India in Nairobi.

A report of the game on Cricinfo carries the headline 'Magnificent Cairns steers New Zealand to great triumph'. He hit 102 not out to haul the Black Caps to victory with just two balls left, after India dominated the first 25 overs of each innings. It remains New Zealand's only world title.

He was put on a high pedestal; cricket Bible Wisden named him one of five players of 2000.

Across the Thames from Southwark, at the majestic Lord's cricket ground the name C L Cairns is written on the honours board, for a startling first innings bowling display that in 1999 set up New Zealand victory over England inside four days.

Cairns took 6-77 against England at Lord's to earn the right to be on a glittering list of honours board names at the world's most revered cricket ground - you need five wickets in an innings, 10 in a test, or a century.

Among those alongside Cairns on the wall; G L McGrath (Australia), A A Donald (South Africa) and R J Hadlee (New Zealand). Again, Cairns was writ large in the match summary of a game New Zealand won by nine wickets.

"Cairns was a revelation, unveiling a slower ball, learned from former Nottinghamshire colleague Franklyn Stephenson, that dipped viciously to cause panic among the home batsmen," Cricinfo archives recall.

"His dismissal of 20-year-old Read was the most spectacular, not to say embarrassing: Read attempted to duck what turned out to be a yorker, and fell away as he was bowled."

His test career would end in 2004 with 3320 test runs with a best of 158, 218 test wickets, 13 five wicket bags, and one 10 wicket haul.

In one-day internationals he had 4950 runs with a top score of 115, and 201 wickets, when he put his bat in the cupboard in 2004.

Injuries saw him miss 55 tests, with his record in his abbreviated career as good as great all-rounders such as England's Ian Botham. He developed from a young rebel to a senior statesman in the Black Caps, captaining the side seven times. He was only the sixth man to reach the double of 200 wickets and 3000, though oft criticised for too rarely playing as he did in Nairobi and at Lord's.

But statistics don't show what kind of player he was. Cairns was a draw card, a player who made things happen. He may have quibbled in the trial about his former cricket mates calling him "icon" and "hero", saying they were over-egging it, but to many young cricket fans that's what he was.

Cairns is now off the pedestal. He has lost cricket-related jobs, and seen cricket-related dreams - TV commentating, a cricket academy, an X-Factor style television show among them - at very least, on hold.

While awaiting trial he was reportedly cleaning bus shelters in Auckland, working for less than $20 an hour.

He had to borrow money to fight Modi in court. He was on legal aid for the perjury trial, fighting a battle during which he appeared at times stressed and upset.

He wept four times, three times in the witness box, once in the dock. He has been away from his wife and small children for months.

He had trouble getting people to testify on his behalf, both at the libel hearing and in the perjury trial. No one wanted to be linked with match fixing, with Cairns telling the court he'd become "rather toxic".

He had good reason to feel more stressed by this case than when he stared down Modi - perjury carries a maximum sentence of life in jail, while perverting the course of justice bears a maximum of life. In the Modi hearing no such cell-oriented risk existed.

Some evidence heard seemed more suited to a James Bond movie, than a cricket cheating trial; Vincent went to a hotel room to inspect cricket bats and found himself inspecting a semi-naked woman instead. Later, he admitted he'd done more than just scrutinise.

Blackmail allegations, diamond deals, lies to authorities, drunken conversations, bags of money picked up in industrial Birmingham, the Manchester underworld, depression, cricket teams both trying to lose, threats of violence with a cricket bat, broken marriages, unpaid debts, and sneakily recorded Skype conversations were lobbed up.

All were made for scandalous headlines, yet in the end proved peripheral to the real issue; could Crown key witnesses Vincent, McCullum and Ellie Riley - the ex-wife of Vincent - and Crown Prosecutor Sasha Wass, QC, persuade the jury Cairns was guilty of lying under oath?

In three fraught days in the witness box punctuated with two breaks to recompose, Vincent told the jury Cairns employed to him to fix games for the Chandigarh Lions in the 2008 Indian Cricket League (ICL). His role was to score 10 to 15 runs off 20 balls, then get out. He also reeled off so many "I don't recall" answers, he could have hit a century of them.

In his shorter stay at the crease, McCullum said Cairns in 2008 twice tried to line him up as a fixer, once in India, where he was in the Indian Premier League (IPL), and again in England.

Riley told the court Cairns had reassured her on a night out in 2008 the fixers would never get caught. Six other witnesses said either Vincent or McCullum had talked to them about Cairns.

Defence lawyer Orlando Pownall, QC, painted Vincent as a self-confessed liar and cheat out to save his own skin by setting up Cairns.

Vincent should have been jailed for corruption, fraud, money laundering and bribery in England, Pownall said. Cairns had never paid him a "penny piece", but Indian bookie Varun Gandhi had.

It wasn't disputed that McCullum met Cairns twice in 2008, but over the years he had turned those meetings into approaches to cheat, when they never were.

And Riley? She was "in drink" and emotional on the night she said she talked to Cairns.

After all the legal jousting the attack, and counter-attack, the final decision was referred to the 12-person panel of third umpires, sitting in the jury room.

After deliberating for 10 hours and 17 minutes, they ruled Cairns not out.

 

 

 

[jimsmith 224]

As this thread stated "Guilty until proven innocent" 

The trial went longer than most high profile murder trials and received even more media attention. 

In these P.C days you can't do this or that because of privacy laws etc etc etc etc but you can legally utterly destroy a mans reputation and just pass it off as "news". 

The only thing missing from this farcical trial was a basket of burning cats.

[Uriah Heap 481]

Cairns brought this trial upon himself, when he sued Modi in 2011.

He should have let the Modi comments slide through to the Keeper and we'd have all quickly forgotten about it. Had he done so, Cairns would now be a Sky commentator and we would have only vague memories of match fixing accusations against him.

[Uriah Heap 481]

Cairns said this morning that his father had suffered. He said Lance had attended a Cricket World Cup game and some (unnamed) old team mates had turned their backs on him.

I'd like to know which "Old team mates" did this to Lance Cairns. Does anyone know?

[jimsmith 224]

26 minutes ago, Uriah Heap said:

Cairns brought this trial upon himself, when he sued Modi in 2011.

He should have let the Modi comments slide through to the Keeper and we'd have all quickly forgotten about it. Had he done so, Cairns would now be a Sky commentator and we would have only vague memories of match fixing accusations against him.

I disagree Uriah.

Tens of thousands of people read what Lalit Modi put out there about Cairns being a liar and a cheat. He had to do something. Sitting on your hands when someone does that to a high profile person is exactly the same as accepting the allegations are true and correct. That wouldn't have been quickly forgotten as you say at all. Cairns was stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. He had to act.

Who said he wanted to be a Sky Cricket commentator? Better than cleaning Auckland bus shelters for $20 an hour but why would he want to be involved in Cricket at any level after good mates and colleagues turned on him and his family?

I wouldn't blame him one bit if he instead took up any career outside of cricket.

[GONSTA 1,148]

1 minute ago, jimsmith said:

I disagree Uriah.

Tens of thousands of people read what Lalit Modi put out there about Cairns being a liar and a cheat. He had to do something. Sitting on your hands when someone does that to a high profile person is exactly the same as accepting the allegations are true and correct. That wouldn't have been quickly forgotten as you say at all. Cairns was stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. He had to act.

Who said he wanted to be a Sky Cricket commentator? Better than cleaning Auckland bus shelters for $20 an hour but why would he want to be involved in Cricket at any level after good mates and colleagues turned on him and his family?

I wouldn't blame him one bit if he instead took up any career outside of cricket.

Actually only 65 people read the Modi tweet before it was removed... 

[jimsmith 224]

2 minutes ago, GONSTA said:

Actually only 65 people read the Modi tweet before it was removed... 

Best not to confuse how many people read the tweet with how many people knew about the tweet. There will be only a few million difference. 

[GONSTA 1,148]

9 minutes ago, jimsmith said:

Best not to confuse how many people read the tweet with how many people knew about the tweet. There will be only a few million difference. 

And how does everyone know about it? Because Cairns tried to sue him...

[jimsmith 224]

27 minutes ago, GONSTA said:

And how does everyone know about it? Because Cairns tried to sue him...

Beep. Wrong.

Correct answer is that Chris Cairns was one of the biggest names in World Sport and had a huge profile. When a man like Lolit Modi accuses you of being a liar and a cheat on a public forum millions of people will know about it well before any court challenge is confirmed.

If the target had been Fred Smith for example Modi had accused it would have long since been forgotten. 

Modi very deliberately put Cairns in a position where he either say nothing and have the world accept the accusation must be true and correct or challenge it and have even more people watch what happens next. We must also allow for the possibility Chris Cairns was in fact innocent as well as not guilty.

For the record Cairns didn't try and sue Modi. He successfully sued him. That in it's self is huge. Today's not guilty verdict is even bigger.

I accept there are those out there who will always believe Chris Cairns is guilty and feel the "trial" was fair and reasonable and all about justice. As we know there are also people out there who also believe in the tooth fairy.

These are my last words on the topic.

It's also my final contribution to Racecafe. I'm an opinionated man happy to share my perspective and have it challenged.

I've just found it unrewarding to contribute over the last few weeks and even more so recently. I will however continue enjoying reading the input of many others.  Won't miss the cheap shots and passive aggressive bullshit from the online brave souls.

I have a modest business to run that is getting busier and busier and need to get on and look after that.

Cheers 

[Uriah Heap 481]

2 hours ago, jimsmith said:

I disagree Uriah.

 

Who said he wanted to be a Sky Cricket commentator? Better than cleaning Auckland bus shelters for $20 an hour but why would he want to be involved in Cricket at any level after good mates and colleagues turned on him and his family?

I wouldn't blame him one bit if he instead took up any career outside of cricket.

Chris Cairns was commentating for Sky Sport on a Test match in Dunedin when the news broke that he was being investigated. He immediately resigned..