After eight tense weeks the pressure is now on the jury in the Chris Cairns trial to decide the fate of the cricketing legend.
For so long the 12 jurors have silently sat back, listened, taken notes and analysed evidence from their seats in the jury box.
That has all changed. Somewhere in the Southwark Crown Court, the jury are stowed away together; having taken their masses of thick folders, jury bundles, winter coats and pret sandwiches, they will now make decisions that will irrevocably change the lives of two men.
It must consider verdicts on three counts for Cairns and his co-accused Andrew Fitch-Holland.
The first decision is whether Cairns cheated at cricket and is therefore guilty of perjury, the accusation he lied in court during the 2012 Lalit Modi libel trial at the High Court in London.
If it finds him guilty of perjury it can move to consider whether his co-accused Andrew Fitch-Holland is guilty of perverting the course of justice for trying to get Lou Vincent to lie to protect Cairns.
If it finds Fitch-Holland guilty then it must consider the same charge for Cairns and whether they colluded to convince Vincent to make a false statement.
However if it finds Cairns not guilty of perjury it follows that he could not have conspired to get someone to lie about it and all other charges fall by the wayside – not guilty verdicts follow all round.
The jury retired after the judge finished his three-day summary up.
In his speech Justice Nigel Sweeney focussed on the evidence given by Black Caps captain Brendon McCullum.
He reminded the jury of Mr McCullum's evidence that Cairns approached him in India in 2008 about cheating while Mr McCullum was playing in the Indian Premier League.
Mr McCullum was "pretty shocked by that approach and looking back wished he had said no straight away".
Cairns agrees the meeting did happen and that they spoke about spread-betting but only in general terms and that there was definitely no approach made of Mr McCullum to cheat.
Justice Sweeney told the jurors they may want to ask themselves if Mr McCullum's description of being shocked and stunned was "a reaction to an approach about match-fixing" or a reaction "to an innocent conversation about spread-betting?"
Mr McCullum reported the alleged 2008 approach two-and-a-half years later in February 2011, he made subsequent statements in September 2013 and a third in March last year.
There were discrepancies between his three statements and Justice Sweeney told the jury to judge whether:
a) Mr McCullum deliberately changed his account, as the defence suggests, because he was serving his own interests to make the position of Cairns worse as the statements went by.
b) Is it simply the process of someone being asked questions more carefully in the second or third statements and/or innocently recalling more detail in the second and third statements.
The jurors can't meet on Wednesday or Thursday because of immovable personal commitments but will return to court on Friday to be tucked away again and continue deliberations.
The only reason they can leave their Southwark Crown Court hideaway is to go home at the end of the day and for occasional cigarette breaks - though the judge urged them to be kept to a minimum.
3 News