Witness intimidation: The issue of ‘intent’

In Friday’s bulk email to her followers, Belinda noted that when Sabine and Neelu head to court to face charges of witness intimidation, their defence strategy will be to prove that they published six witness statements on a blog read by hundreds of people because they are malicious, irresponsible, and stupid, but not because they intended to intimidate anyone.

According to this blog from Quentin Hunt, a specialist in criminal and regulatory law, this is indeed a likely strategy, which if handled dexterously, could potentially result in a verdict of ‘not guilty’.

Here’s Mr Hunt’s take on the matter (bold script ours):

The law in relation to witness intimidation is set out in s51(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It states that a person commits an offence if he ‘does an act which intimidates, and is intended to intimidate another person and he does the act knowing or believing that the victim is assisting in the investigation of an offence or is a witness or potential witness or a juror or potential juror in proceedings for an offence and he does it intending thereby to cause the investigation or the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with.’

The person complaining against the defendant must actually be intimidated, the offence cannot be committed if they were not (R v N(Z) 2013)- there is no judicial definition of intimidation but the dictionary definition is ‘to frighten or threaten someone, usually in order to persuade that person to do something that you want them to do’.

Subsection 5 states that the intention and motive required need not be the only or the predominating intention or motive with which the act is done or threatened. So if a subsidiary benefit of the intimidation is their not giving evidence (for example) but the main benefit or motive is something else then the offence is still made out.

In other words, Neelu and Sabine committed the offence if:

  1. They published the witness statements, thus intimidating, and intending to intimidate, the six witnesses;
  2. They knew that the six witnesses would be testifying against Neelu for her role in the disturbance at Christ Church;
  3. They did this intending to cause the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted, or interfered with.

We think it’s fair to say that all six witnesses were indeed intimidated. We know this because when Neelu’s trial was finally held, she walked free since none of the witnesses would agree to testify against her.

According to Mr Hunt,

Subsection 7 states that if the relevant act is proved with the requisite knowledge or belief, then the defendant will be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have done the act with the intention required by the Act.  This of course imposes a reverse legal burden on the defendant. So the defendant must prove this defence on the balance of probabilities- so that is more likely than not, this is a lower burden than that imposed upon the defendant to prove the rest of the offence- they have the burden of making the jury sure or in layman’s terms beyond reasonable doubt.

We’ve stated many times that we’re not lawyers, and our reading of this is that if it can be proved that Neelu and Sabine conspired to publish the witness statements ‘with the requisite knowledge or belief’ (that the victims would be called to testify), then they will be presumed to have committed the crime…unless they can prove that they committed the act without intending its consequences.


Were the statements intended to intimidate?

By the time Sabine published the witness statements, in mid-summer, the internet had been flooded with material relating to the Hampstead hoax. Emotions were running high, and the orchestrated campaign against the people of Hampstead was well under way.

We would suggest that it could not have been possible for Sabine and Neelu to be unaware of the impact that this hoax had already had on the parents, children, teachers, clergy, and business people of Hampstead. These people’s very real and justifiable fear—of vigilante action, of poison pen letters to friends, family, and workplaces, of repercussions upon their children—was well known.

Death threats abounded, as anyone who attempted to speak up against the hoax was targetted and singled out by the baying mob online.

And the elderly priest at the church had already been chased by Neelu and other angry demonstrators:

As well, the woman and child living at the church cottage had been stalked, filmed, and threatened by the creepy Code 2222; and all of the six witnesses had experienced the very distressing assault on their place of worship, and on their right to worship in peace.

Given all this, we would find it hard to believe that Sabine and Neelu could be unaware that their actions would be perceived as threatening.

In fact, anyone who cares to may still go to one of Sabine’s blogs (which we’re not naming or linking to) and read the witness statements in full. Despite the charges she faces, and knowing that the post itself is both illegal and damaging to those named, Sabine has not taken them down, nor shown any sign of remorse or shame at having posted them in the first place.

Were the statements intended to pervert the course of justice?

As for whether Sabine and Neelu published the statements with the intent of perverting, obstructing, or interfering with the course of justice, we must ask: what was the purpose of publishing them at all?

In fact, they were published as one part of a post that contained all of Neelu’s bail terms.

The purpose certainly seemed to be to demonstrate the unreasonableness of those bail terms, and to stir up public anger about her ‘unfair’ arrest. The witness statements were presented in a mocking, sneering way, as evidence that the so-called ‘cult’ was making up stories about poor, hard-done-by Neelu.

All along, Sabine has been very forthright about her intention to incite public rage, as part of her campaign against those she sees as ‘cult members’ and ‘child abusers’. Publishing the witness statements was just one aspect of her relentless campaign.

So, while she and Neelu might attempt to evade the issue by claiming lack of intent, we hope the judge throws the book at them.

Their callous, cruel, and very intentional act deserves no less.



54 thoughts on “Witness intimidation: The issue of ‘intent’

  1. “We would suggest that it could not have been possible for Sabine and Neelu to be unaware of the impact that this hoax had already had on the parents, children, teachers, clergy, and business people of Hampstead.”

    …Especially as we all told them so about 500 bleedin’ times!

    The prosecutors really should read our countless HR, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook comments, messages and posts from the time!

    Very thorough and insightful post, by the way, Mr. Coyote.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Sabine McNeill and Neelu Berry have been key people in the campaign against the people of Hampstead, they have shared and seen most of the material going out about it. The CPS could provide adequate material showing that McNeill and Berry knew of the distress the Hampstead campaign was causing for instance this video of the BBC interview with the father:

    The conduct of Neelu Berry in her recent court outing works heavily against her, because that will be brought to the attention of the Jury. The bail breaches and multiple arrests could also be used as evidence against them. The conduct of Neelu Berry in her previous case involving a hospital can be used to show a pattern of intent to harass and intimidate.

    The law is a fickle animal and one can never be certain of an outcome with it.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Yes but one letting statements public before case is heard,This is an abuse of process.meaning the victim will not get fair hearing.


  4. I don’t know, but putting up something saying the witness should take a genital selfie and apparently upload it for Sabine maybe shows the interfering bit. Doing it only a few days ago is probably not what a solicitor would advise.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Not so much as the law being fickle as juries being an unknown quantity. As the recent case with another ‘truther’ who made allegations against Ken Clarke and was charged with Perverting Course of Justice & was found Nor Guilty by a jury, proving the case can be difficult.

    I note since his acquittal – probably on stern advice from his brief- he has zipped his lips and gone silent.

    My view is this : my own lawyer is now having to seek an harassment lawyer against a Berry /McNeill / McKenzie type character after 5 years of endless harassment over a case . I repeatedly warned him that his harasser would never give up and was proved right. Now I have had to do all the( unpaid) hard work providing proof of the abusers endless internet blogs etc and proof that he owns them & so on.

    I swing between totally understanding the innocent residents of Hampstead who just hope that silence will see this problem vanish – and getting quite pissed off with the fact others are pursuing these creatures while they take no legal action against them : for which they would have a winnable case that would silence the rogues once and for all time.

    My message to anyone in Hampstead, local police, social services workers etc, is this : you will NEVER find peace form these abusers. Each time they have a small court win it fires them up to attack you again.

    You must take decisive action to stop this lot in their tracks and relying on the police can be futile.I support you wholly but if you think you will have peace from this lot then you are deluding yourselves. It’s not fair but that is the reality.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I think this will be an extremely hard case to win. If the prosecution does not win, those falsely accused will find themselves victims of a new barrage of hate and harassment.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Agreed!

    At the risk of being a lone voice, though, I am still a little annoyed that those witnesses failed to turn up for Neelu’s trial. I fully sympathise with them over the intimidation and harassment they’ve endured but if I’m honest – and I won’t take it personally if anyone wants to shoot me down in flames over this – it niggles me that there are people such as all you guys (and me) who, despite being in a position to walk away from this at any time, work so hard to defend two people who then don’t bother to defend themselves. Two people who were in a key position to put away one of the main perpetrators but elected to walked away.

    EC, I won’t be offended if you want to delete this one, lol.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I totally agree with you, there are many opportunities to run civil cases against these people, especially against Belinda McKenzie who has a nice house amongst other assets to leverage against.

    You are right, these Satan Hunters will never stop, they will keep going with their endless blogs, videos, petitions in their delusional belief that there are no consequences for themselves. Every success they use as fuel to motivate themselves, and they are quite willing to paint a disaster as a success as they did after inflicting unnecessary legal costs on their client Melissa Laird but celebrated when they did not have to pay their share of those costs.

    I watched the BBC video of the interview with RD the father of P and Q for the first time yesterday, and it became brutally clear the impact the Satan Hunter campaigns have had upon him and his children. Hypocrisy, injustice and dishonesty are the hallmarks of these Satan Hunters, and they use every power at their command to inflict maximum harm upon their victims. There is massive potential for both RD and the children P and Q to run a damages claim in the civil courts against Belinda McKenzie running into £100K’s if they were minded to do that.

    I also note the Satan Hunter has no respect for the law. Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill were quite happy to run a legal action on behalf of Melissa Laird when they had no power to do so. All the Satan Hunters believe the judges, courts and police are part of a conspiracy and have zero respect or motivation to adhere to legal activities to curb them. Neelu Berry has infringed injunctions which have never been enforced against her, so she believes she is untouchable. Neelu Berry issues her pseudo-legal documents upon judges arresting them and claiming they have no powers to act against her. Neelu Berry in her latest court outing has shown she has no desire to take seriously the charges against her, she believes she will succeed and get them thrown out. Sabine McNeill has constantly been breaking her bail conditions, yet apart from being arrested again, she gets no other penalty. They all live in lala land, and it is only when assets are taken away from them, or they go to jail, will they start to come terms with the real world rather than the fantasy worlds they live in.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I wonder if as proceedings advance that the charges may be altered or added to.

    An interesting thought is the one about the potential of being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    From the CPS web site


    Reading statements before trial

    There is no general rule that witnesses cannot see their statements before a trial. In a number of cases the courts have approved the practice of allowing witnesses to see their statements prior to trial.

    It is desirable, although not essential, that the defence are informed that witnesses have seen their statements prior to giving evidence. However, if a witness is allowed to see his or her statement some time before the hearing (rather than immediately prior to the trial) the defence must be informed as it could go to the weight that can be properly attached to the witness’s evidence.

    Providing a witness with their statement well in advance of the hearing could raise the following issues:

    Risk of collusion between witnesses;

    A witness who has made a false statement may try to ensure that his or her evidence in court is consistent with the false statement;

    A witness may try to “learn” the content of their statement and create a false impression of their truthfulness;

    The statement may be lost or may end up in the wrong hands;

    The defence may seek to undermine the credibility of the witness by cross-examining on the basis that one or more of these events has occurred.

    In light of the potential risks outlined above it should only be in exceptional circumstances that a witness is given a copy of their statement days or weeks before the trial begins. Usually a request for a copy of a statement can be met by allowing the witness access and a sight of the statement rather than giving the witness a copy. In circumstances where the statement is particularly long or complex, supplying a statement may be unavoidable.

    A prosecutor can deny a witness a copy of his or her statement if there is reason to believe that the request is made for reasons other than a desire to give honest and accurate evidence. For example a witness who is related to, or friendly with, a defendant might want to alter their evidence to be more favourable to the defendant.


    “Perverting the Course of Justice

    Date Produced: 1 July 2011
    Title: Administration of Justice
    Offence: Perverting the Course of Justice
    Legislation: Common law
    Mode of Trial: Indictable only
    Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: At large
    Sentencing Range: 4 months to 36 months

    Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
    Nature and number of offences
    Whether premeditated or spontaneous
    Degree of persistence
    Arrest of innocent person
    Innocent person maliciously targeted
    Any impact upon prosecution
    Relevant Sentencing Guidelines
    R v Tunney [2007] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 91
    The sentence appropriate for perverting the course of justice essentially depends on three matters:

    the seriousness of the substantive offence to which the perverting of the course of justice related;
    the degree of persistence; and
    the effect of the attempt to pervert the course of justice on the course of justice itself.
    Relevant Sentencing Case Law
    General sentencing brackets summarised in Archbold at 28-28 as follows:

    threatening or interfering with witnesses – 4 months to 24 months
    concealing evidence – 4 months to 18 months, possibly longer if serious crime
    false allegation of crime resulting in arrest of innocent person – 4 to 12 months
    Recent Decisions reported in Current Sentencing Practice reported at B 8-2.3 divided into: interference with prosecution witness; threatening or intimidating witness; making false allegation of crime; concealing evidence; interfering with jurors; false information in mitigation.

    AG’s Ref (No. 1 of 1990) (John Cameron Atkinson) (1990-1991) 12 Cr. App. R. (S.) 245
    Sentence should normally be consecutive to substantive offence.

    AG’s Ref (No 35 of 2009) (R v Binsteed) [2010] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 61
    Sentences of imprisonment should not normally be suspended.

    Interference with potential witnesses
    R v Hurrell [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 23
    Appellant asked to provide a sample of breath, prevaricated, was arrested, offered the police officer £2,000 to forget about the test, and continued to try to bribe the officer while being conveyed to the police station. On arrival, he provided a sample. He said that his attempt to bribe had been light-hearted. Previous cases considered. Sentence for attempting to pervert reduced to three months imprisonment.

    R v Hall [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 42
    The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He and others indulged over months in very serious and sustained attempts to threaten and intimidate a 15-year-old girl due to give evidence at his trial for a sexual offence against her. Sentence of seven and a half years imprisonment upheld.

    R v Jones [2008] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 75
    After a murder, one of those involved contacted the appellant, who agreed he would visit the murder scene to ensure that no one would speak to the police about it. The girlfriend of one of offenders agreed to provide evidence and was given witness protection. The appellant tried to persuade her to retract her evidence by threats and promise of money if she changed her statement. She gave evidence and the men were convicted. After his own arrest, the appellant caused further pressure to be put on her. Convicted. Sentence of 12 years imprisonment upheld.”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. There will come a point that victims of these Satan Hunters will start to lose faith in the law to protect them from the endless crusades against them, and will take matters in their own hands. It is in the interests of the legal authorities to put all their resources into ending these crusades once and for all.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Mens Rea can also be established by recklessness. The law in this area is somewhat complex, but at the end of the day if they did something (even without intent to cause harm) and they should have known better, then they might find themselves convicted anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I believe this is a developing situation with many months of opportunity for many twists and turns. It seems to me Satan Hunters are like crack addicts in that they need to create drama to get their next hormonal high.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Ben Fellows does seem to be quiet at this very moment.

    However, 3 months after his court case at the Old Bailey, Ben set up a GOFUNDME page and collected money from the vulnerable which enabled him to go on a nice tour of Europe, Turkey and finally to India.

    Ben claimed he was going to meet the Dalai Lama! Well that is what he told all his gullible supporters.

    Needless to say the Dalai Lama meeting never happened and Ben has gone very quiet.

    Ben is being pursued by a Phillip Gordon-Ball (i think his name is) and Phillip’s wife for approx £1200+ that Ben borrowed and promised in an email to pay back.

    Check out a page on fb “Do not donate money to Ben Fellows Ever Again”.

    Ben has fell out with some ardent supporters of him, including Lou Collins and Brenda Mumsy McNamara after Ben instigated a video slandering Brenda in particular.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Thats the problem, the Hampstead SRA hoax will never go away until the agents of this hoax have been jailed and sued. People can bury their heads in the sand and hope or pretend it will go away, but it won’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Because my main motive in fighting this SRA hoax is to defend my Satanic religion, I am becoming aggravated by Sabine McNeill, who has in recent weeks stepped up her defamations that Satanists harm children. One proposal I make is as follows:

    1000-2000 leaflets distributed door to door at my expense in Hampstead, location as below.

    1. make people aware and encourage them to support

    2. encourage people to consult lawyers and take civil actions against the witchfinder, specifically Belinda McKenzie.

    3. update people on what has happened so far.

    4. toned down but make people aware Satanists do not harm children.

    5. make clear that there is no evidence of SRA in UK.

    6. try and reduce the fear.

    I will personally underwrite and supervise the distribution.


    Liked by 1 person

  16. I wonder if this is the paper preparing its readers for the up coming court case?

    I notice that Abrella’s friend has been photoshopped out rather crudely. Did we ever identify him?

    Liked by 1 person

  17. As I said- I totally support the innocents of Hampstead and understand their probable feelings that time will see an end to this matter. But the internet is something we never had to deal with 20 years ago. It re-fires the lunatics and there is always a new crew of believers who spread the filth all over again.

    How they can stop them is a problem but lawsuits are one step. They also need to get quite heavy with their MPs and demand action be taken by the shareholders of Youtube, Google, Facebook and other entities that allow these falsehoods to be published. But it is difficult.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Go for it is my comment. One thing to be careful of though : the coming court case. It would be wrong to interfere with it in any way even though it’s never stopped them from their attacks and abuse. Maybe better to wait until that is over.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. I have no objection, and I do think that trying to reduce fear and prejudice are good aims in themselves. However, I wonder whether you’d be preaching to the choir in this case? It seems to me that the vast majority of those who promote this hoax live outside Hampstead; those in the area are already well aware of the lies and libels that have been flying about. As for a lawsuit, I can’t say for certain, but my guess would be that it could be very expensive, even for several people, in proportion to what they might actually be able to win in damages. If anyone knows more about this, I’m very open to being corrected. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Thanks, DG. Yes, we have been shouting about this for months and months–another reason that Sabine and Neelu should not be assumed to be unaware of the damage they inflicted.


  21. Yes, I can only imagine. I think it’s good that the Sun has at least acknowledged that this was a hoax, and that there’s never been even a scrap of evidence to prove the existence of SRA in the UK, but still. Stories like this are very difficult for those who’d just like to put this behind them and get on with their lives.


  22. I wonder why they’d be prepping people for the court case this far in advance, though? Usually in a situation like this, a paper would start the pre-trial coverage a few days before, as people have very short attention spans as a rule.


  23. Thanks, certainly issues to consider in weighing up the cost/time against potential results of this distribution. I estimate for 1500 A4 leaflets a cost of £100 for travel and printing. If I could get a local business to join a leaflet with this distribution I could reduce the cost by half.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. You are correct- any legal action is very expensive. A QC would be able to advise on how winnable a case is but even a barrister’s advice is expensive. And with McKenzie owning a house…but does she?. She’s a crafty one and her assets may be tied up in some sort of trust that cannot be touched. I think she has anticipated potential legal actions in the past and made arrangements. Look how she lures others in to take carry the can for her actions.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. I agree with you that juries can be an unknown quantity–that’s why I’m really hoping that the CPS has its act together this time.

    Looking at other similar cases, I think of the Hollie G. hoax, which has pretty much petered out now, though of course every now and again some nutter tries to breathe new life into it. Robert Green was found guilty and sent to prison, which cut the head off the thing; and people like Belinda drifted away, realising that it had become a lost cause, not worth bothering with any longer.

    My hope for Hoaxtead is that if Sabine and Neelu can suffer the same fate as Green, this too shall pass. There will always be traces of it out there, of course, but the main event will die down, and the troofers will go on to find some new bone to chew on.


  26. Even when they are found guilty, and/or have their assets taken away, they attribute these things not to their own wrong-doing, but to the ‘cult’ that is able to exert astonishing powers over the legal system. Arguing with these bone-heads is like banging your head against the wall–there’s really no way to win, as no matter what happens it’s all ‘proof’ that they’re right.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. I saw the tweets from Phillip Gordon-Ball about Fellows’ shoddy dealings. I’m very sorry they got taken in; it’s an object lesson for those who would support these nutters, but very painful for those who lose large sums of money.


  28. Yes, I agree. The fact that Sabine, Belinda, Neelu, et al have harassed, and continue to harass those they have decided are guilty does not speak well for their case.


  29. No, I think it’s a fair comment, DG! And I think many of us feel your frustration.

    I think this cuts to the heart of the witness intimidation issue: those whose statements were published walked away, but whether they did so out of indifference or fear is the question.

    You and I (and most of those who comment here) use pseudonyms to protect our identities. I know I’m very cautious about that, because I’m keenly aware that if my real name were known, my family, friends, and workplace would likely be inundated with horrible accusations about me. I’ve seen what has happened to the families in the affected schools and church, and I have no desire to subject myself, or others, to that kind of attack.

    Those who had their witness statements published started off acting in good faith: they spoke to the police in the full belief that what they were saying would be kept in confidence until Neelu’s trial. To suddenly discover that the statements they’d made had been put out into the public realm, and that they were now sitting ducks for the Hoaxteaders must have been a terrible shock–and quite frightening, given the death threats that were, and continue to, circulate.

    So while it was very disappointing to see Neelu’s first trial crumble to dust as it did, I find it hard to point fingers at those who declined to testify.

    I suppose the bright side, if there is one, is that their reluctance opened the door to the much more serious charges of witness intimidation. While I know it will be challenging to the Crown to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, I still allow myself to hope that it can be done.


  30. My guess is that she’s got all her assets protected. We’ve looked into her company, M4, which seems to run negative retained earnings; it lists its business as ‘property management’, which makes me suspect that it’s the shell company that owns Belinda’s house in Highgate.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Its an easy matter to check – it costs £4 on the government website



    RESIDENCY: 1989 ­ 2015
    RECENCY 15/10/2015

    Its interesting who else lived at the address over the years and registered on the electoral roll


    ZUI SERPER 10/10/2002 2002
    ANNIE MACHON 15/10/2008 2006 ­ 2008 47
    DAVID SHAYLER 01/01/2008 2006 ­ 2008
    NAOMI SALAMAN 10/10/2002 2002
    ROY HUNTER 15/10/2008 2008 53
    DECLAN HEAVEY 15/10/2012 2009 ­ 2012 55
    ANTONIA BALDO 10/10/2002 2002
    LOLA HEAVEY 15/10/2012 2008 ­ 2012
    TOM HOGAN 10/10/2002 2002
    TERESA M MCKENZIE 30/11/2006 1996 ­ 2006 36

    David Shayler (born 24 December 1965)

    Is a British journalist and former MI5 officer.[1] Shayler was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1989 for passing secret documents to the Mail on Sunday in August 1997 that alleged that MI5 was paranoid about socialists, and that it had previously investigated Labour Party ministers Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw and Harriet Harman.[2]

    Annie Machon (born 1968)

    Is a former MI5 intelligence officer who left the Service at the same time as David Shayler, her partner at the time, to help him blow the whistle about alleged criminality within the intelligence agencies. By doing this, they had to give up their careers, go on the run across Europe (August 1997), live in hiding for a year, and then spend the next two years in exile in Paris. They, and many of their friends, family, supporters and journalists, claim to have been intimidated, and some of them were arrested and put on trial. A death threat was announced against her on a Middle Eastern radio station.

    In 2005, Machon published her first book, Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5, MI6 and the Shayler Affair in which she offers criticism of MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service based on her observations of the two whilst in the employment of MI5

    Declan /Lola Heavey

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Ben Fellows has gotten away with too many things. He looks like he could very easily lie straight to your face and convince himself he is telling the truth as well as convincing you also. Slimey little creep

    Liked by 1 person

  33. I actually also do believe in fair trials for all too, even those I intensely dislike!!!!

    Mind you, seeing as Sabine’s RCJ “win” involved her disabled and penniless litigant having her court costs roughly doubled due to her McKenzie friends acting beyond what is allowed pursuing pointless litigation that was academic, not in her interest and that they used for their own purposes, and that they couldn’t be bothered to turn up for even when they said they needed to be heard, who knows what any future “wins” will look like?

    Quite a few people are looking out for that judgment. MWAHAHAHA

    Will let you know if I see it.

    I’d use that “win” again and again if I were you just to warn people what their sort of “winning” means for the poor people whose real lives are being decided on in the courts. It isn’t pretty.

    Melissa Laird was incapable of looking after a dog, truly the case. She has some way to go before she can be trusted with a little human being again.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. I know, while the McKenzie fiends gloated about their ‘win’, their client is truly left holding the bag. They did nothing but grind her further into the dirt, for all their happy tears.


Comments are closed.