mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I wanted to use the word "dark" rather than "controversial" as I feel controversial is more appropriate for like a Warnie calibre tabloid scandal but didn't want it to be mistaken as a racist pun. And "criminal" history feels wrong too since he was acquitted. But anyway enough whinging about the limits of the English language
All this time, I thought he had only been accused of rape and that's why he missed the '99 WC. Which of course is worrisome enough but I thought it might have been kinda just a very unsubstantiated rumour since as a kid I remember him back in the side fairly soon after.
While reading his wiki just now though I found out he was actually tried and convicted due to "overwhelming evidence".
He won his appeal 6 months into his sentence and was acquitted and went onto have a full cricket career. Which I guess if that acquittal was just, and he didn't actually do it, fair enough. Just seems strange for a conviction with apparent overwhelming evidence to be overturned. Especially as I feel a lack of evidence is what blocks many rape cases from ever getting off the ground in the first place.
I guess it's just surprising to me I'm just now learning it about the extent of this issue for a bloke who was a very famous cricketer in a very strong side. I've seen far more discussion about match fixers from that same era than this on CW
what are people's thoughts? Is it more likely the first trial was a farce or the appeal a farce? Because like... One of them must have been a farce right? For the older posters, was this huge news at the time? Or had it happened too early into his career
All this time, I thought he had only been accused of rape and that's why he missed the '99 WC. Which of course is worrisome enough but I thought it might have been kinda just a very unsubstantiated rumour since as a kid I remember him back in the side fairly soon after.
While reading his wiki just now though I found out he was actually tried and convicted due to "overwhelming evidence".
He won his appeal 6 months into his sentence and was acquitted and went onto have a full cricket career. Which I guess if that acquittal was just, and he didn't actually do it, fair enough. Just seems strange for a conviction with apparent overwhelming evidence to be overturned. Especially as I feel a lack of evidence is what blocks many rape cases from ever getting off the ground in the first place.
I guess it's just surprising to me I'm just now learning it about the extent of this issue for a bloke who was a very famous cricketer in a very strong side. I've seen far more discussion about match fixers from that same era than this on CW
what are people's thoughts? Is it more likely the first trial was a farce or the appeal a farce? Because like... One of them must have been a farce right? For the older posters, was this huge news at the time? Or had it happened too early into his career
Last edited: