Chris Cairns - Guilty or innocent?

**husaberg** · 24th October 2015, 21:41

Originally Posted by Winston001

Yeah but maybe not. Modi declared in bankruptcy after the trial and may not have paid anything. Which means Cairns was stuck with paying his own lawyers, plus having to ante up for this trial. He must be a wealthy man.

It emerged in court that Modi had offered Cairns £75,000 (NZ$145,000) damages last April but Cairns rejected that and requested a role as a coach in the Indian Premier League or a satellite tournament in Sri Lanka or Australia instead. Justice Bean said: "I'm satisfied Mr Cairns was justified in coming to trial to get the vindication which he has sought."

He only got
£90,000 (NZ$174,000) damages plus legal fees.

two posts above I did an add up. Mr cairns has far far far more to loose than he will ever gain, it will be very ironic if falsely pursuing the original legal action bites him on the bum after refusing a cash settlement in the first place. A cash settlement that he likely did not deserve at all.

**husaberg** · 25th October 2015, 19:15

I missed Andre Adams

Andre Adams latest to testify in Cairns trial

Monday 19th October

Former New Zealand bowler Andre Adams was the latest in a long line of international cricketers to testify in the perjury trial of former New Zealand captain Chris Cairns. Appearing via video link, Adams reportedly told the court of a conversation between Cairns and a number of cricketers whom he was allegedly trying to recruit into his match-fixing ring. He assured them that it didn’t matter if match-fixing occurred in Indian Cricket League (ICL), because, as a non-sanctioned event, they were powerless to stop it.

Andre Adams "I can remember Chris saying even if there is match fixing, it's not a sanctioned tournament so how will they get anyone when not sanctioned

Chris Lance Cairns on a day between the 1st day of October 2010 and the 31st day of March 2012, having been lawfully sworn as a witness in a judicial proceeding, namely the trial of a libel action in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England in which one Chris Lance Cairns was claimant and one Lalit Modi was defendant, wilfully made a statement material in that proceeding which he knew to be false, namely that he had never, ever cheated at cricket and nor would he ever contemplate such a thing’, reads Count 1 of the CPS charge sheet, which alleges that Cairns has committed perjury, contrary to section 1(1) of the Perjury Act

**husaberg** · 4th November 2015, 16:34

Chris Cairns took the stand today.
What happened? He said no a lot.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket...-ends-in-tears

**RDJ** · 4th November 2015, 16:39

I don't actually know what happened, but I assume that Chris Cairns as usual ignored the First Rule of Holes; when in a hole, stop digging.

He is not the only one to do so...

**husaberg** · 4th November 2015, 16:48

Originally Posted by RDJ

I don't actually know what happened, but I assume that Chris Cairns as usual ignored the First Rule of Holes; when in a hole, stop digging.

He is not the only one to do so...

But there is the rub in this case as its a what they said vs what he said, he realistically had no option, I assume but to take the stand. Confidence appears to not be an issue with Mr Cairns.

**Banditbandit** · 6th November 2015, 15:07

Only Cairns will ever know the answer - I'm happy to wait to see what the courts have to say - and even then they could be wrong ...

Amusing story tho'

**husaberg** · 6th November 2015, 15:56

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Only Cairns will ever know the answer - I'm happy to wait to see what the courts have to say - and even then they could be wrong ...

Amusing story tho'

How much are you willing to bet on him being not guilty...........

**oldrider** · 6th November 2015, 19:51

It will come down to evidence and law - hearsay is not evidence - there has to be an element of fact to weigh up against written law!

Did he or did he not commit perjury? - yes or no and here is the tangible proof! - that is supposed to be what the trial is all about - is it not?

**husaberg** · 6th November 2015, 19:57

Originally Posted by oldrider

It will come down to evidence and law - hearsay is not evidence - there has to be an element of fact to weigh up against written law!

Did he or did he not commit perjury? - yes or no and here is the tangible proof! - that is supposed to be what the trial is all about - is it not?

Hearsay information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
Only issue is the evidence presented is not heresay, its evidence, as it is substantiated and corroborated by witness testimony.
It comes down to, who is telling the truth, is it many people, or the one accused person.

**Doppleganger** · 7th November 2015, 06:48

He is coming across as a very unpleasant person and certainly guilty of being an arrogant prick but guilty of perjury mmm probably.
Anyone with his amount of arrogance probaly feels he can get away with anything and wouldn't see a few lies as being a big deal, even under oath.

A real shame I enjoyed what he did for NZ cricket at the time and would hate to think he he fixed against us.

**Stylo** · 7th November 2015, 16:42

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

He is coming across as a very unpleasant person and certainly guilty of being an arrogant prick but guilty of perjury mmm probably.
Anyone with his amount of arrogance probaly feels he can get away with anything and wouldn't see a few lies as being a big deal, even under oath.

A real shame I enjoyed what he did for NZ cricket at the time and would hate to think he he fixed against us.

I used to be proud of him way back then, what skills ! But I also used to love the Rolf Harris show when I was a kid.

**Banditbandit** · 9th November 2015, 08:39

Originally Posted by husaberg

How much are you willing to bet on him being not guilty...........

Nothing . I have no clue either way from listening to the evidence (both of the previous court hearing and this one ) ...

Nio idea at all ... But he does seem pretty arrogant ..

**oldrider** · 9th November 2015, 09:18

Originally Posted by husaberg

Hearsay information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
Only issue is the evidence presented is not heresay, its evidence, as it is substantiated and corroborated by witness testimony.
It comes down to, who is telling the truth, is it many people, or the one accused person.

Really comes down to: Guilty or not - the stain remains! - There appears to be enough stain to last a long long time - the silly bugger.