Her mind was all over the place. If – and it was a big if – she somehow succeeded in delivering that ‘not guilty’ verdict, Laura would be safe – so, at least, she had been assured. But at what price to the community at large? How many lives would be destroyed, as Cork had pointed out, by Gready going free?

She took a bite of her baguette and chewed. But if it wasn’t Gready, she rationalized, it would be others. The supply of drugs wouldn’t stop because one man was removed from the chain. Dozens more would step in to fill the breach.

She remembered something she had read, years ago, in a book, the title of which she couldn’t recall. Something to do with icebergs? What had that Financial Investigator’s nickname for Gready been? The Iceberg. And now she remembered – it wasn’t icebergs, it was glaciers. Wars were like glaciers, they would just keep on coming. Wasn’t it the same with drugs? Weren’t drug dealers like glaciers, too? Unstoppable. Relentless.

If Terence Gready went to jail, his shoes would be filled in an instant. But nothing, ever, could replace Laura. If anything happened to her, Meg wasn’t sure she would want to go on living – or even be capable of it.

95

Friday 24 May

Richard Jupp swept into court with a spring in his step, and shortly afterwards the jury followed.

After he was seated, he addressed them. ‘You are now going to hear the defence counsel’s closing words. Following that I will be giving you my summing-up – don’t worry if you think you might have missed anything, as I will give a very thorough recap.’ He turned to Primrose Brown. ‘Please proceed.’

Primrose Brown now stood and faced the jury. ‘I would like firstly to thank you for your patience and diligence during this trial. You’ve heard a great deal of evidence from both sides, some of it extremely factual, some of it highly emotional and some of it – I’m referring to the financial evidence – at times deeply baffling!’ She grinned and several jurors smiled back, nodding their agreement.

‘My learned friend has outlined the prosecution evidence that he relies on, at times in considerable detail. But in my view this evidence you have heard is at best circumstantial. Despite what my learned friend would imply, there is, firstly and very crucially, not one shred of evidence you can rely on which puts the two men, the defendant, Mr Gready, and his purported colleague, Mr Michael Starr, together at any time.’

She went on at length to challenge all the evidence that had been presented that the two men had met, including a detailed attack on the testimony provided by the Forensic Gait Analyst, before moving on.