Thanks for your kind comment. I am not a qualified lawyer, but in my former career was quite specialised and was able to guide prosecution lawyers, IYSIM. Certainly in conference with barristers, incl. QCs, the discussion was between equals. However, I have been retired for ten years and so my knowledge is not current so I am always open to correction.
I was intrigued by the shambles of evidence that the WT put forward at the ARC hearings. WT knew what they were going to be asked and I would have expected a multi-million dollar corporation to have prepared better. Toole, as the lead lawyer in Australia, was -to be honest - a joke. I have arrested, interviewed and had convicted far sharper lawyers than him in small towns in Wales - and he was national legal adviser!
I don't know whether WT took this on board, but it should have done. The shenanigans surrounding Jackson's appearance before ARC was a big deal. Watch the WT lawyer (the real one, not Toole) squirm and apologise to HHJ explaining that he had been misled by the WY head honchos. This does not happen very often and it really is a big deal.
I wonder whether WT HQ and its lawyers, sitting in the US, have really grasped what they're dealing with. My limited knowledge of US federal law suggests that there is a sort of blanket immunity for religions under the constitution, and certainly the weight of religious vote is important. That's not the case in the UK (or in Australia) and religious organisations generally have no ;get of jail free' card.
More to follow ...