"Have full faith in my abilities and hard work and hope my suffering ends soon" : Salman Butt

[The_Odd_One]

So unfair to someone who has centuries in Australia

 

[Monsee]

^^^I think Butt (and to a lesser degree Asif) have no one but themselves to thank for that; their continued pompous and victim act turned on them when they eventually confessed.

Asif did not get as much hate because he kept his mouth relatively shut while Butt was all over TV, live matches etc. making a case for his innocence and people were only able to take so much of that nonsense till they turned full time on him

 

[mak36]

You are confusing the Cricket Trial and the Criminal Trial, and your facts are actually wrong.

These are the Facts:

1. All three players maintained their innocence to the ICC Tribunal - including Mohammad Amir.
2. Amir only pleaded Guilty in his criminal trial, but the honesty that involved was a joke anyway, as
a) he continued to claim to have been born on 13 April 1992, to avoid being sent to an adult prison, and
b) he refused to give evidence of his crimes anyway at a Newton Hearing, leading the Judge to question the sincerity of his Guilty plea.

SOURCE: http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Mohammad-Amir-7586-1.law

3. The ICC Tribunal was clear that Mohammad Asif - not Amir - was the only one of the three to initially reject the corrupt approach, and that Asif - not Amir - was the only one to refuse to accept corrupt payments.

No, these are not the facts. You have completely twisted what the judge said. For example:

2b) You are correct to state that Amir did not give evidence at the Newton hearing. However, you are wrong to claim that this is what led to the Judge to question the sincerity of his guilty plea. Allow me to quote the Judge directly:

"You have referred, in material presented to the court, to threats to yourself and your family, saying that there are significant limits to what you can say in public. "The reality of those threats and the strength of the underworld influences who control unlawful betting abroad is shown by the supporting evidence in the bundle of documents, including materials from the Anti Corruption and Security Unit of the ICC."

 

[mak36]

In other words, the Judge accepted the "reality of those threats" made against Amir and his family.

As an aside, for someone who claims to have read Bookie Gambler Fixer Spy I am surprised you don't believe a threat was made against Amir.

 

[Junaids]

No, these are not the facts. You have completely twisted what the judge said. For example:

2b) You are correct to state that Amir did not give evidence at the Newton hearing. However, you are wrong to claim that this is what led to the Judge to question the sincerity of his guilty plea. Allow me to quote the Judge directly:

"You have referred, in material presented to the court, to threats to yourself and your family, saying that there are significant limits to what you can say in public. "The reality of those threats and the strength of the underworld influences who control unlawful betting abroad is shown by the supporting evidence in the bundle of documents, including materials from the Anti Corruption and Security Unit of the ICC."

Except this is proof of just how unsound the convictions in this Fake Sheikh trial were.

I have written before that Asif's barrister - the brother of ex-English PM David Cameron - argued that a joint trial was unsafe as it meant that evidence would be confused between four separate defendants.

But the whole point is that these charges involved no criminal fixers or underworld - it was a newspaper sting.

Amir refused to give evidence at the Newton Hearing on the pretext that criminal "underworld influences" might kill him.

He obviously didn't mean the News of the World! It could only mean that there were separate offences for real criminals. Or that his Guilty plea was merely tactical and would not survive cross-examination because he was admitting only the Lords offences and not the Oval allegations.

Either option would mean that the Guilty plea was a tactical sham.

 

[mak36]

Can I just add the Judge's comments, in which he doubted the sincerity of Mohammad Amir's Guilty plea?

1. Mohammad Amir admitted only to the delivery of 2 no-balls at Lords for cash, and denied any fix at The Oval, in spite of SMS messages which suggested that he offended there too.

2. The Judge wrote in his findings: "I REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT BASIS OF PLEA ON THE MATERIAL I HAVE SEEN. THERE ARE CERTAINLY TEXTS AND THE LIKE WHICH SUGGEST THAT AMIR'S FIRST AND ONLY INVOLVEMENT WAS NOT LIMITED TO LORD'S, IT WAS NOT AN ISOLATED AND ONE OFF EVENT."

SOURCE: http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Mohammad-Amir-7586-1.law

In effect, the astonishing aspect of the Amir, Asif, Butt case is that the only player who has been restored to the national team was, in the opinion of the Judge, the most guilty, and the one who offended for the longest.

And both cricket and the Law let him off with a shorter sentence for being just 18 years old - which is widely considered also to be highly questionable!

I am sorry, but this is an outright lie on your part. To quote HHJ Cooke directly here:

"I am clear that you bear less responsibility than your captain who influenced you in the manner to which I have earlier referred."

Please stop telling outrageous lies in your efforts to defend your darling, Salman Butt.

 

[mak36]

Except this is proof of just how unsound the convictions in this Fake Sheikh trial were.

I have written before that Asif's barrister - the brother of ex-English PM David Cameron - argued that a joint trial was unsafe as it meant that evidence would be confused between four separate defendants.

But the whole point is that these charges involved no criminal fixers or underworld - it was a newspaper sting.

Amir refused to give evidence at the Newton Hearing on the pretext that criminal "underworld influences" might kill him.

He obviously didn't mean the News of the World! It could only mean that there were separate offences for real criminals. Or that his Guilty plea was merely tactical and would not survive cross-examination because he was admitting only the Lords offences and not the Oval allegations.

Either option would mean that the Guilty plea was a tactical sham.

Oh please, Alex Cameron made that argument for tactical reasons. I would have thought that was obvious.

Stop shifting the goalposts. You claimed that the Judge did not accept's Amir guilty plea on the basis that Amir did not give any evidence in the Newton hearing of any threats. That is untrue and I called you out on this. Accept your error and then we can discuss the rest.

 

[Junaids]

Oh please, Alex Cameron made that argument for tactical reasons. I would have thought that was obvious.

Stop shifting the goalposts. You claimed that the Judge did not accept's Amir guilty plea on the basis that Amir did not give any evidence in the Newton hearing of any threats. That is untrue and I called you out on this. Accept your error and then we can discuss the rest.

I'm not shifting the goalposts.

The ICC Tribunal was fair and handed down sensible verdicts to three players who all pleaded Not Guilty.

The Criminal Trial was a clown's circus.Twelve jurors who knew nothing about cricket, cricket betting or no balls couldn't tell the difference in a whirlwind trial between Mazhar Majeed and Mazhar Mahmood, let alone Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir.

The jury somehow managed to find Asif guilty of receiving a corrupt payment even though the prosecution never actually claimed or produced evidence that he did (that was Amir).

It's a miracle that they didn't convict Mazhar Mahmood, or for that matter the judge.

I don't dispute the guilt of any of the three, although I accept the ICC's finding that Asif was not paid and did it under duress as a favour to his manager.

I don't want Asif or Butt back now, so long as no other new 30+ players are picked in their place.

But I don't fool myself about Amir. He only admitted part of his guilt, and then he evaded a Newton Hearing on a ludicrous pretext because he knew that his partial admission of guilt was contradicted by SMS evidence proving wider guilt.

All three players are the same. They admitted bits of their guilt too late, when it suited their legal or cricketing prospects.