> I assume it to be fairly obvious that McDonald's will win the part
> of the trial about publication,
I cant't see why it is so obvious at all.
> it's pretty certain that the McLibel two were involved heavily in
> the campaign.
it is not certain at all. I am not a legal expert but I would have thought the legal question is not whether they were involved in the campaign or not but whether they actually produced and distributed the leaflets in question. If we argue that McLibel two are guilty by association just because they took part in the campaign, then you have to McD itself is guilty of illigal activities ecause their own spies were involved in the campaign and distributed leaflets.
> However, what if McD only win on some of the other issues.
> For instance, what if they won the section about the destruction of
> Brazilian rainforests but lost on worker's rights? Though it would be
> true that the pamphlet in question was not wholly correct,
Again you are prejudging the case. The defendants have not accepted this neither was is conclusively established during the course of the trial. So I don't know how you can say it is true.
> therefore McDonald's should strictly speaking have won the case
NO, NO, NO, you are definitely wrong here too. Knowing the length McD has gone to in trying to manipulate the justice system in this and other countries, few people will be surprised if McD won the case. And if this happens, it could only confirm one thing; that the justice system is bised in favour of the rich and the big business as we have already seen during the McLibel trial.
> reputation will still be severely tarnished.
> Is it possible for McD to claim victory in the case when they have
> lost on some of the issues? Furthermore, what will become of the
> defendants if such an outcome arises?