the big lawyers --the mcanns have

matthew wrote:The bigger they are...the harder they fall

The big guns = intimidation. My very best wishes to Tony Bennett the only Madeleine supporter who has been willing to risk his very freedom to expose this horrendous 'abduction' fraud.

The End Is Nigh wrote:I don't think he'll even get a Suspended Sentence: Absolute Discharge (which is still "Guilty" or Conditional Discharge).

Imprisonment is highly unlikely and always has been. Too much scaremongering. Imprisonment is the Maximum Tariff, not the norm.

But with that verdict, he would still be liable for all the costs?

Liable for costs, yes - but not necessarily all: I can't think that he would be ordered to pay anything other than a notional sum, in all the circumstances.

And I do feel that the Plaintiffs will be severely admonished for the scale and manner of their pursuit of this Case.

Would CR have made the late addition of a very expensive 'senior' QC if an absolute or conditional discharge was on the cards?

would this additional lawyer have been appointed if existing counsel were certain of their case?

almostgothic wrote:Would CR have made the late addition of a very expensive 'senior' QC if an absolute or conditional discharge was on the cards?

Have you seen the "justification" put out for this latest addition! Truly bizarre.

The Case for the Plaintiffs seems to have become self-fulfilling and cancerous, and I rather think they are not at all comfortable with where they're at.

does any one think this is the start of the end -- does anyone think that maybe just maybe the press will jump on this and show the world what the mcanns really are -- more and more people have joined jh forum sending their best wishes to tony -- this can only mean a own goal for the mcanns hope sy are taking a big interest

The End Is Nigh wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Would CR have made the late addition of a very expensive 'senior' QC if an absolute or conditional discharge was on the cards?

Have you seen the "justification" put out for this latest addition! Truly bizarre.

The Case for the Plaintiffs seems to have become self-fulfilling and cancerous, and I rather think they are not at all comfortable with where they're at.

Yes, I saw that!
Just trying to be 'helpful' to all concerned, so I gather (with jaw dropping)!

"We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"

Are they trying to insinuate that the good judge won't be up to the mark in his own courtroom unless he is put firmly on track by THEIR leading counsel? If he draws that same interpretation, he'll be so mad his wig will catch fire!

almostgothic wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Would CR have made the late addition of a very expensive 'senior' QC if an absolute or conditional discharge was on the cards?

Have you seen the "justification" put out for this latest addition! Truly bizarre.

The Case for the Plaintiffs seems to have become self-fulfilling and cancerous, and I rather think they are not at all comfortable with where they're at.

Yes, I saw that!
Just trying to be 'helpful' to all concerned, so I gather (with jaw dropping)!

"We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"

Are they trying to insinuate that the good judge won't be up to the mark in his own courtroom unless he is put firmly on track by THEIR leading counsel? If he draws that same interpretation, he'll be so mad his wig will catch fire!

Exactly - I don't know how else that statement can be interpreted - the bl--dy gall!!