Cairns 1(74,000) - 0 Modi

Looks like Modi's gone for good. Even lost his political support.

He came back, but has been ousted in a farcical manner again. All pro Modi voters' cars were stopped on the way and could not vote.

A corrupt grub beaten by corruption?

I do find him to be like Tyler Hamilton these days. Obviously a c*nt, but for one reason or the other (mostly spite), he does speak a lot more truth than most of the rest of the administrators.

And he was right about Cairns and that NZ group.

and the next installment is pretty chilling

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-08/cairns-threatened-team-mate-for-scoring-too-much-court-hears/6836500

The recorded Skype conversation between Cairns' lawyer and Lou Vincent is pretty damning. Basically asking Vincent to lie in court.

Yep it's not looking too good for Cairns. The best quote I could find was in The Guardian. Reporting on a dinner where Cairns and his wife, Vincent and his wife and Flintoff were there, the prosecuting QC said this:

Flintoff “didn’t contribute to the conversation and spent the time drinking,” Wass said.

How wrong you can be. All this time we thought Vincent was just seriously shit but he was practicing getting out.

And now acquitted

tricycle wrote:And now acquitted

Bizarre, so Vincent and McCullum lied?

not enough evidence on DRS to convict

lardbucket wrote:not enough evidence on DRS to convict

Aye, British justice not all it's cracked up to be. At times like this I miss Merlin.

And of course the evidence from Vincent was clearly hearsay.

No idea how he's gotten away with that. Must've used the poo defence.

Dello wrote:No idea how he's gotten away with that. Must've used the poo defence bought the jury.

fixed

Dello wrote:No idea how he's gotten away with that. Must've used the poo defence.

he may also have had advice from chewbacca

i just dont see how they can discount mccullums evidence. vincent was easy to discredit but mukka?

Disgraceful outcome.

Filth person like Modi, Cronje and Azza.

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

Dello wrote:No idea how he's gotten away with that. Must've used the poo defence bought the jury.

fixed

so to speak...

Not dying down just yet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/12030232/Chris-Cairns-must-return-to-High-Court-to-defend-1.5m-civil-claim-for-fraud-from-Lalit-Modi.html

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:i just dont see how they can discount mccullums evidence.  vincent was easy to discredit but mukka?  

Clearly guilty. Just shows you what money will buy.

They probably did not discount McCullum's evidence, all they had to do was discredit the other two (Vincent and his wife). His wife had looked at some alcohol from sixty feet, therefore was drunk, therefore made it all up. Also, you can destroy her as "protecting her husband".

Don't blame British justice, it's fine. Blame the jury. Being composed of British people, who apparently lack any form of critical thinking and suffer from severe gulliblitis, it's fair to assume they believed everything they were told, got confused, ignored everything after day one, and acquitted. Half of them probably tried to vote by phone for the one they wanted to stay in court.

As none of us were in court to hear the case we are relying on some journo's version of the evidence presented ....the jury would have heard something completely different