It’s hard to understand why the Metropolitan Police brought the case of perjury against Chris Cairns, in which they sought to prove that he had previously lied in court when he said he had never, ever cheated in cricket, when they apparently had no evidence to show he had ever cheated.
They had no clear evidence of Cairns fixing matches.
They had nothing to show he had ever cheated in a match.
They had no evidence he had ever even profited by having cheated in a match.
They sought to prove no causal chain from paymaster to play to being paid. None at all.
In short, they had nothing to show in court beyond the he-said-she-said testimony given by good people which, on its own, may have supported an actual case but which on its own was no more a was a case than one beer constitutes a good night out.
But it seems that is all the prosecution had to bring to their case. He said she said. And when he said he had “never, ever cheated in cricket” they had a whole lifetime in games to select from to take a case.
So it’s hard to understand why the Metropolitan Police brought their case at all, the decision on which was entirely and one-hundred percent theirs, when they apparently had no evidence at all to show he had ever cheated.
Mystifying.
3 comments:
Agreed. They had nothing of substance.
He is as innocent as OJ and David Bain. Cairns himself can't give a motive for the likes of McCullum testifying against him. An awful lot of smoke for no fire. It's definitely not so obvious he would get off, otherwise you would have posted this before the verdict.
You're probably right in your first sentence. But I generally don't post about trials while they're on.
Post a Comment