Chris Cairns - Guilty or innocent?

[Katman]

Pretty sure she is dirty.

Fuck you're repulsive.

[FJRider]

Isn't this the sport of 'gentlemen'? you know, where sportsmanship, integrity is all beyond reproach?

Or was that before money was invented?.

I think McCullum's future (and a few others) might come under the spotlight after all this.

When money changes hands over a professional sport result ... played by professional's in that sport ... temptation can occur ...


Not a new concept in some sports ..


Proof of ... or even suspicion of .. can be the downside. (throw enough mud and some will stick)


In a court of law ... being found not guilty ... does not always mean they are NOT ..





And does anybody really care about it anymore .. ???

[husaberg]

Fuck you're repulsive.

Who is an angry little neo Nazi tonight then. I'm picking you finally figured out yokels not a girl.
I''m picking a total conspiracy theorist like you would have formulated multiple theories as to who behind this by now, so is it the Yanks the Israelis or the aliens Katman..............

[ellipsis]

...Chris who?...

[PrincessBandit]

From article today:


"Former New Zealand captain Vettori said in a statement McCullum told him in 2010 that Cairns had spoken to him about spread betting, which he took as a spot-fixing approach. But under cross-examination in Southwark Crown Court by Orlando Pownall, QC, Vettori agreed he'd made a mistake and his statement was "not the truth". McCullum had told him two years earlier, he said.

Pownall put it to him that he'd said October 2010 so that he could not be banned from the game for not reporting what McCullum had told him. McCullum reported the incident in early 2011.

Players can be banned if their is an "undue delay" in them reporting fixing encounters, even if they hear of them through a third party. Vettori said the mistake was "genuine". There had been tours of Bangladesh in 2008 and 2010, McCullum had told him on one of those, and he'd been wrong about which one it was.

He said he'd indicated to International Cricket Council (ICC) anti-corruption investigator John Rhodes he was unsure of the dates when he gave his statement. But when Rhodes gave evidence he did not recall that Vettori had been unsure. Reporting the approach was something Vettori never considered was up to him, he told the jury by video link. "Because the approach wasn't to me, I didn't feel I had an obligation to report it," he told the court. "At no stage did I think it was my responsibility."



The bit that bothers me is that, according to this article, players are supposed to be prompt in reporting even hearsay/rumours and face stiff penalties themselves for not doing that. So are they meant to go bleating to the "authorities" every time they hear a rumour (who knows, could just be malicious)? What if it is about someone they find it hard to take any credence in relation to? Do they nark on someone they admire and aspire to be like as a sportsman just because they hear a little whisper? Do they take their time and try to determine whether there is any substance to the claims? If that be the case, are they in the firing line because they didn't "do their duty and report" immediately?

The ICC have already said they are not the fricken Police so where does this leave players who are then savaged by lawyers (who are, after all, only earning their daily crust hahahahahahaha) - in no mans land! Witnesses are damned either way and the only winners, pointed out earlier, are the lawyers who thrive off the despair and intimidation of people who should have no fear of coming forward.

Yes, I did notice the spelling mistake of "their". I guess proof reading even for media is a dying skill.

[Oscar]

The case isn't about match fixing, it's about lying under oath.

In the libel case, Cairns said something like - "..I have never indulged in match fixing or even talked about it."

It's the last bit that's gonna fuck him.
Whereas it would be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did spot fix, it has almost certainly already been proven that he did speak to others about it.

The last high profile perjury case in the UK was Jeffrey Archer who got 4 years and served 2.

[awa355]

Rumours of game fixing probably abound every week in professional cricket, and almost every other paid sports.

About the only clever action on Cairn's part to date is his choice of lawyer. I guess they have to determine the spot fixing allegations before perjury can be proved.

[husaberg]

The case isn't about match fixing, it's about lying under oath.

In the libel case, Cairns said something like - "..I have never indulged in match fixing or even talked about it."

It's the last bit that's gonna fuck him.
Whereas it would be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did spot fix, it has almost certainly already been proven that he did speak to others about it.

The last high profile perjury case in the UK was Jeffrey Archer who got 4 years and served 2.

That wasn't his first offence in regards to dishonesty either. He had a history of other offences, Pretty sure they let him back into the house of lords as well or at least keep the title.
That video he I posted of the Cairns Statement was very carefully worded, yet it appears he was reading it off a cellphone?

[Oscar]

Rumours of game fixing probably abound every week in professional cricket, and almost every other paid sports.

About the only clever action on Cairn's part to date is his choice of lawyer. I guess they have to determine the spot fixing allegations before perjury can be proved.

No they don't.
He's charged with perjury, not spot fixing.
His case at the libel trial was that not only had he never spot fixed, but he had never considered or discussed spot fixing.
All the Crown has to do is prove that he had discussed spot fixing with someone with form in that area (like Lou Vincent) or had tried to entice someone (like McCullum) to spot fix. This, they appear to have done.

[PrincessBandit]

No they don't.
He's charged with perjury, not spot fixing.
His case at the libel trial was that not only had he never spot fixed, but he had never considered or discussed spot fixing.
All the Crown has to do is prove that he had discussed spot fixing with someone with form in that area (like Lou Vincent) or had tried to entice someone (like McCullum) to spot fix. This, they appear to have done.

Except his lawyer is avoiding that conclusion for now...

[pritch]

The case isn't about match fixing, it's about lying under oath.

Exactly. The Indian millionaire accused him of cheating but couldn't prove it and Cairns sued the Indian for libel and won IIRC. Possibly by lying in his teeth in Court. Now it is the lying that he has been charged with. Basically it now comes down to Cairn's word against the small army of witnesses the prosecution have assembled.

Normally during a trial you can't tell what the verdict will be because the trial starts with the prosecution presenting their evidence. The press duly reports this one sided story as news and it always looks bad for the accused. Later, when the defence get to present their case it may be that a totally different picture emerges.

The Indian millionaire will be watching keenly because if Cairns is found guilty he will be slapping him with a legal action of his own to take whatever money Cairns has left after he has paid his lawyer for the current case.

And Cairns really does need to buy himself a suit that fits.

[husaberg]

Exactly. The Indian millionaire accused him of cheating but couldn't prove it and Cairns sued the Indian for libel and won IIRC. Possibly by lying in his teeth in Court. Now it is the lying that he has been charged with. Basically it now comes down to Cairn's word against the small army of witnesses the prosecution have assembled.

Normally during a trial you can't tell what the verdict will be because the trial starts with the prosecution presenting their evidence. The press duly reports this one sided story as news and it always looks bad for the accused. Later, when the defence get to present their case it may be that a totally different picture emerges.

The Indian millionaire will be watching keenly because if Cairns is found guilty he will be slapping him with a legal action of his own to take whatever money Cairns has left after he has paid his lawyer for the current case.

And Cairns really does need to buy himself a suit that fits.

Thats the normal procedure and chain of events but in this case they need to prove what was said by the Prosecution witnesses as being untruthful the only opportunity is in cross examination.
While he might be able to provide character witnesses etc. Unless he has witnesses that were there and can refute the witness testimony his only option is taking the stand himself.
That could be a trainwreck in waiting. Most murder cases the Accused is heavily advised not to take the stand and leave themselves open to cross examination.
Yet I can't see he has any other options, unless he can provide other witnesses who were there.

International Cricket Council (ICC) intelligence unit former general manager Ravinder Sawani told the court what it had on Cairns was "beyond rumour". The unit had been gathering intelligence on Cairns, he said to the London court.
Asked by crown prosecutor Sasha Wass, QC, whether he had material that suggested Cairns "might have been involved" in match-fixing in the ICL, Sawani responded "yes".
It could not investigate Cairns as he had retired from cricket, and his alleged activities in the ICL were beyond its reach, as the ICL was not sanctioned by the ICC, Sawani told the jury.
"Mr Cairns was no longer a cricketer who was involved in cricket so the decision was taken not to investigate him," he told the court.http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket...ns-matchfixing

No they don't.
He's charged with perjury, not spot fixing.
His case at the libel trial was that not only had he never spot fixed, but he had never considered or discussed spot fixing.
All the Crown has to do is prove that he had discussed spot fixing with someone with form in that area (like Lou Vincent) or had tried to entice someone (like McCullum) to spot fix. This, they appear to have done.

It would be rather ironic if he did lose this case as it appears it need not have even happened

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.

[Swoop]

Isn't this the sport of 'gentlemen'? you know...

No. It is a game.
There is an agreed set of rules.

[Winston001]

He got a large wad of cash in a defamation suit that preceded this when someone named him previously as a Match fixer. 2012

then again gee you are right look at the costs. 3 million Dollars legal fees.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket...el-case-denied

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.

[Winston001]

Only winners in this must be the lawyers

Well I certainly hope so. Doing trials like this is not easy. There are probably 15 binders (500 pages each) of evidence and each lawyer has to hold all of this in their memory while watching and cross-examining witnesses.

Watch a trial sometime - switching from bundle 3 page 281 paragraph 36 to bundle 7 page 422 paragraph 5 - that contradicts your evidence here today doesn't it?