Print

[Neon Cricket]

http://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/10084854/chris-cairns-found-not-guilty-of-perjury

Thoughts?

[Mr_Orange]

The longer the jury took the more I thought he'd be found not guilty.

Based on what I've read in the press I thought he'd be found guilty - especially with all the player statements.

[iand123]

I guess its never been proven, i thought he would end up guilty but without proof that a match was fixed (despite it being highly likely given the evidence) it was always going to be difficult

[uknsaunders]

surprised but it depends on what he is alleged to have lied about during the last trial. The jury's instructions would of related to that more than a verdict on his general conduct.

[ppccopener]

it's like anything once it gets to court, to be found guilty there has to be clear proof not just 'he said this, I said that'...

Once the judge said he would accept a majority verdict I thought it would be guilty myself but there's either lack of real evidence or of course, he is innocent.

I think the implication of a guilty verdict would of been huge

I suspect a lot a people have just breathed out very heavily.

[jamielsn15]

Reasonable doubt I guess...

[Buzz]

In financial fraud trials it is not unheard of for the benefit of doubt to be given to the defendant because the jury aren't sufficiently financially experienced to understand the issues at hand.

You have to wonder if something similar happened here.

Still Lalit Modi will be quiet for a while!!

[ppccopener]

A week?

I did read the original case cost Modi 90k is damages and 400 grand in court costs.So there was a lot riding on the result. If Cairns had lost i'd imagine there would be a claim for the original amount awarded to be returned plus a lot more

I don't expect Cairns,Macullum and Fleming will be having dinner together anytime soon!

[grunter]

The thing that got him off I think is that there was no money trail linking Cairns to Vincent.

Vincent apparently fixed matches for Cairns without receiving a cent. So if there is no monetary exchange, is it actually match fixing?

[sanredrose]

Not guilty is my expected verdict. The case didn't have material evidence to prove Cairns paid Vincent. Prosecution or offense had to substantiate the case with circumstantial evidence like he said ... she said etc. Media/Press highlighted players statements and made Cairns look guilty. Nowadays its very difficult for someone to cover up a money trail unless they have a whole batch of crooks working for them. Seems like either Cairns is head of the crooks or he is just a guy who got his name dragged through the mud for nothing ...