The question was, though, did Dhoni, who insisted on standing up for his protégé Jadeja and accusing Anderson, have the evidence to establish his case to the satisfaction of a dispassionate and independent authority?
The Indians had the conventional route of complaining to the match referee David Boon open to them. This would have almost certainly resulted in rap on the knuckles for Anderson, perhaps even being found guilty of a "Level 2" offence.
The tourists spurned the option and instead raised the stakes by going over the referee's head and directly approaching the ICC. In other words, they demanded that a judicial commissioner hear the matter.
Even after Srinivasan failed to persuade Dhoni to pull back, the ECB were open to a compromise. An apology by Anderson wasn't ruled out. A six-point formula to amicably settle the matter was accepted by it as a basis for discussion. The Indian team's manager, too, was agreeable to exploring this.
A meeting between Downton and Dev was arranged on the morning of the first day of the 2nd test at Lord's. But Dhoni shot it down.
Once the door was shut in this manner, it boiled down to Dhoni proving his case in quasi-judicial circumstances, which is what a hearing presided by an outside judicial commissioner with a legal background under the ICC's code of conduct procedures amounts to.
Common sense, logic and law as existing in England and India (which at least the BCCI, if not Dhoni, ought to have been cognizant of) suggested you look before you leap and you have incontrovertible independent proof to endorse your assertion.
It meant either you had a credible third party witness to corroborate that Anderson pushed Jadeja and consequently committed an offence or there was acceptable video evidence to put the issue beyond doubt. Dhoni had neither. Therefore, it was an open and shut case of “not guilty”.
