It's likely just plain cynicism but I can't help but be wary when it all hinges on unsubstantiated claims made by him in an effort to profiteer off their daughters abduction and likely murder. I know such things are fairly common but immediately the figures sound odd even before the slightly grating coincidence that the possible payment might match the available fund. From what I can gather he lost the original case and was made to pay them around £394,000 in damages, the case was later overturned and we end up here.
One thing I'm not sure of, if the case is overturned have they had to already return the original cases money they received in damages? Even then, that's a hell of an inflation to reach the numbers being knocked around that they may need to pay him.
Also, for him to win by proving they provided false statements and information surely he'd have to effectively prove they were guilty?
One thing I'm not sure of, if the case is overturned have they had to already return the original cases money they received in damages? Even then, that's a hell of an inflation to reach the numbers being knocked around that they may need to pay him.
Also, for him to win by proving they provided false statements and information surely he'd have to effectively prove they were guilty?
Comment