Vardy v Rooney - "nasty bitch"

[Hunderland]

Phone dropped in the North Sea? Everything 'unfortunately' wiped from devices?

YABU - those things really were totally coincidental that happened just after they were told to hand them in

YANBU yeah ...right...

I don't agree with this. CR could have said publicly that she was not accusing RV directly but just that it was her account and someone could have hacked it. That was what RV was maintaining so she would have been happy with that. And subsequently CR tried to sell that same line to the judge that that was what she had meant. So unless you're saying the CR was lying to the court, she could have cleared up this mess before court proceedings.

I'm not convinced Vardy would have been happy with that. She waited 8 months before taking libel action. And it clearly wasn't what Rooney meant. She didn't try to sell that line to the judge, nor did she lie in court. Her lawyers tried to get the judge to agree that her words could mean someone with access to Vardy's account in order to make it easier for Rooney to defend the case. Neither Rooney nor her lawyers claimed that is actually what her words meant.

@Itsalmostanaccessory. You like CR so i guess you don't think she'd lie. So let's assume she always tells the truth. She told the judge that she wasn't accusing RV of leaking the stories. The fact that judge didn't believe her is neither here nor there. According to CR she never accused RV of being the one leaking the stories. Therefore she could have stated quite publicly that the leaks were coming from RVs account but in no way was she saying it was RV herself. That was her sworn position in court so why not save all this hoopla and say it publicly prior to the court case?

In case people find my last post a bit confusing, the argument concerning Rooney's words was about how readers would interpret those words, not what Rooney meant by them.

It is perfectly legitimate for her lawyers to argue that readers would have interpreted them as meaning someone with access to Vardy's account even though that isn't what Rooney meant. That is because a defamation case is about the damage to someone's reputation, in this case Vardy's. If people don't think Rooney was specifically accusing Vardy, even if that was her intention, it doesn't damage Vardy's reputation.

[quote Louisianagumbo]@Itsalmostanaccessory. You like CR so i guess you don't think she'd lie. So let's assume she always tells the truth. She told the judge that she wasn't accusing RV of leaking the stories. The fact that judge didn't believe her is neither here nor there. According to CR she never accused RV of being the one leaking the stories. Therefore she could have stated quite publicly that the leaks were coming from RVs account but in no way was she saying it was RV herself. That was her sworn position in court so why not save all this hoopla and say it publicly prior to the court case?[/quote]
Your premise is wrong, and hence your conclusions are wrong.

Rooney did not tell the judge that at all. She hasn't told the judge anything. She hasn't given evidence yet. She hasn't made any sworn statements in court.

Her lawyers said that an ordinary person reading her message would interpret it as meaning that someone with access to Vardy's account leaked, rather than meaning that Vardy leaked. Rooney has never said that she intended anything other than to say that Vardy leaked. However, as per my last post, how readers would interpret her message is significant in libel cases.

What Rooney actually wanted the judge to accept as the meaning of the message was, "there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant was responsible for consistently passing on information about the Defendant’s private Instagram posts and stories to The Sun
newspaper." That's it. No mention of someone with access to Vardy's account.

I should also add that, whilst Vardy did not accept the interpretation suggested by Rooney's lawyers, it is clear that she would have continued with her libel action even if the judge had agreed with that interpretation. So, even if Rooney had clarified her accusation in this way, she would probably still be defending herself in a libel suit.

@Louisianagumbo

Oh, no, I dont. Not at all. I've had some public rants about the wasted talents of these vapid women who hang onto rich men for fame and fortune. They're all a nightmare.

But this isnt about liking either of them. This is someone whose friend betrayed them for money, went crying to TV studios and papers and then sued her. Its ghastly behaviour from Vardy after doing something horrible to someone who trusted her.

Her lawyers said that an ordinary person reading her message would interpret it as meaning that someone with access to Vardy's account leaked, rather than meaning that Vardy leaked.

CR lawyers speak on her behalf so if they are saying that the ordinary person would interpret it like that, the only conclusion can be that that's what CR intended them to think - and they must have got that information from her. To say that CR had written one thing with the expectation that everyone would think she meant something else is bonkers.

It was clearly intended to imply Vardy personally. It refers to "someone I trusted" and "an individual" and was written to build tension and finish with a dramatic reveal. You don't do that when you mean "an account which I realise may be accessed by any number of people". I definitely inferred Vardy personally from it and any mentions of the "account" felt shoehorned in as a thin attempt at plausible deniability.

CR lawyers speak on her behalf so if they are saying that the ordinary person would interpret it like that, the only conclusion can be that that's what CR intended them to think - and they must have got that information from her. To say that CR had written one thing with the expectation that everyone would think she meant something else is bonkers.

Rubbish.

Rooney contended that her words mean there are reasonable grounds to believe that Vardy leaked. That' it. Her lawyers introduced the idea that people might think she meant someone with access to Vardy's account as a way of justifying this interpretation. You clearly don't have a clue how these cases work. Stop trying to take an argument put by her lawyers which Rooney may not have seen or approved before it was put to the court and putting it in Rooney's mouth. It wasn't her argument. Her only argument is that she meant there were reasonable grounds to believe that Vardy leaked.

To say that CR had written one thing with the expectation that everyone would think she meant something else is bonkers

Come off it, We all know what she meant. The …Rebekah Vardy’s account was to cover her back.

And I’m Team Rooney all the way.

@Freshprincess

To say that CR had written one thing with the expectation that everyone would think she meant something else is bonkers

Come off it, We all know what she meant. The …Rebekah Vardy’s account was to cover her back.

And I’m Team Rooney all the way.

Exactly.

@prh47bridge. Actually I do know how cases work. I used to work for a prosecuting body and used solicitors to take cases to court. They never ran a strategy in court without consulting me first. That would be madness because I'd have to stand up and give evidence and if the strategy they decided to pursue did not tally with what I said (and I never lied), my case would be in real trouble.

You're saying that the lawyers decided to say that any ordinary person would not take it that CR meant RV while at the same time CR would testify in court that she did mean RV. The two positions are incompatible.

[quote Louisianagumbo]@prh47bridge. Actually I do know how cases work. I used to work for a prosecuting body and used solicitors to take cases to court. They never ran a strategy in court without consulting me first. That would be madness because I'd have to stand up and give evidence and if the strategy they decided to pursue did not tally with what I said (and I never lied), my case would be in real trouble.

You're saying that the lawyers decided to say that any ordinary person would not take it that CR meant RV while at the same time CR would testify in court that she did mean RV. The two positions are incompatible.[/quote]
You are determined to twist words. I will have one last attempt. And I note that you say you worked for a prosecuting body. Civil litigation is somewhat different.

CR's position is that her words meant that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Vardy leaked. That was the strategy.

The lawyers advanced several arguments in support of this. One was that an ordinary person, reading Rooney's words, would take them to mean that someone with access to Vardy's account leaked. That is tactics, not strategy and has nothing to do with what Rooney meant. Rooney could quite happily say that she meant Vardy and her lawyers could still maintain that an ordinary person reading it would understand it to mean someone with access to Vardy's account.

It is entirely compatible for Rooney to say she meant X whilst her lawyers say that the ordinary person, reading Rooney's words, would take them to mean Y. It happens both ways in libel cases - the plaintiff alleging that the words used by the defendant would have a defamatory meaning even though that wasn't what was intended by the defendant, and the defendant arguing that the words used would not be interpreted as defamatory by an ordinary person reading them even though that was what they intended.

The idea that Rooney must argue that an ordinary person reading the words she wrote must interpret them the way she meant is miles away from the reality in defamation cases.

However much you try to twist it, Rooney has never said that someone with access to Vardy's account leaked. The minimum she has ever said is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Vardy has leaked.

I wasn't talking about this case. You took that view. I was saying that CR could have stopped this lawsuit by saying that she was not maintaining that RV herself had leaked the information but that someone who had access to her account had done so. I agree that prior to the court case CR never said that anyone else had leaked the info, but if her lawyers put forward the argument that people could perceive that's what she meant, then that's obviously part of her defence strategy in case they could not prove it had not been RV. CR must have sanctioned that because I don't believe for one second that they don't consult with her. Therefore it's implicit that she's willing to go along with the idea it may not have been RV who leaked but someone with access to her account. So she could have said this back in 2019 and it never needed to go to court.

Of course, she's perfectly entitled to say she'd rather have her day in court but then don't have your lawyers argue what people might infer if you believe you have the evidence that is was RV who leaked the story.

I don't believe I have twisted anything. You are talking legalese and how things work in court. I am talking common sense of how she never needed to go to court in the first place by her acknowledging that it was the account and not RV that leaked which is now what her lawyers were trying to get the judge to believe.

So where does this case go now?

1. Watt's phone fell in north sea. The dog ate my homework. Does CR not have evidence of said whatsapp messages?

[quote Hunderland]**@LadyLyndon* apparently RV did say "nasty bitch" in conversation mentioning CR but it wasn't actually about* CR

I don't know about you but something just doesn't sound right with that argument [/quote]
I am a primary school teacher and this sort of defence is used regularly by my 9/10 year olds! 😂😂

@Oblomov22

So where does this case go now?

1. Watt's phone fell in north sea. The dog ate my homework. Does CR not have evidence of said whatsapp messages?

Rooney has the messages between Vardy and Watt that were disclosed, some of which we have seen in the press. The fact that other things have gone missing, apparently after the court ordered that they should be disclosed, will definitely not help Vardy. Unless Vardy manages to convince the judge that this really was a series of unfortunate accidents, I would expect the judge to take the view that the missing items have been deliberately destroyed because they were incriminating.

I can't see any employee leaking information that their boss had been told confidentially without that boss knowing and approving it - I mean, you just wouldn't do that would you?

@Aderyn21

I can't see any employee leaking information that their boss had been told confidentially without that boss knowing and approving it - I mean, you just wouldn't do that would you?

Well you might, but you wouldn't exchange gleeful texts about it with her.

Yes, I mean if you did that without your boss knowing/agreeing you'd expect to get the sack and the boss would apologise to their friend. If you are exchanging gleeful texts it does imply that you have tacit consent. I'm obviously not a lawyer but I don't know anyone could argue that the leak didn't originate with them at that point.

I agree prh47, even without said north sea phone, I would hope that the Judge would take a dim view of such Vardy supposed repeated disasters that led to 'missing' evidence.

...and now Vardy's so called 'IT expert' can't remember the password.

How convenient for her

Hope Rooney gets awarded everything she's entitled to, RV's team are completely taking the piss.

Another fascinating development is that Watts, Vardy’s agent, the person best placed to sink Vardy's case, is declining to be cross-examined because she is in a fragile state and had been expressing serious concerns about giving evidence. This goal to avoid cross-examination has been supported by a report from a consultant forensic psychiatrist.

I'm not sure how this will go in court but the amount of separate unfortunate events that have taken place on the Vardy side to cause evidence to become unavailable which would likely have been of benefit to the Rooney side is very surprising indeed.

From the Daily Mail:

The 'unfortunate events' outlined by Mr Sherborne included:

• The deletion by Ms Watt of her Twitter account;
• Ms Watt's assertion that she regularly deleted WhatsApp chat messages;
• Ms Rooney being refused access by Ms Watt to her Instagram account;
• Ms Watt's 'extraordinary claim' that she dropped her mobile phone into the sea in August 2021, shortly after it was ordered to be searched by the Court;
• Ms Watt's refusal to permit the Defendant's expert to conduct a forensic examination of her current device and her full iCloud;
• Ms Vardy's evidence that she accidentally erased all images, audio files and videos from her WhatsApp conversations with Ms Watt when exporting the messages to her solicitors;
• The laptop used by Ms Vardy for this export no longer working;
• After this, Ms Vardy's laptop was subsequently 'disposed of';
• Ms Vardy's claim that messages between the Claimant and Sun reporter Andy Halls were deleted, with her having no recollection of how;
• Jamie Vardy's WhatsApp being hacked and all conversations permanently deleted.

I suspect Vardy is taking legal advice from the same place as our Prime Minister and his slippery fingered friends. Similarities in their defence

Colleen is a nice genuine girl. A great mum and wife. What she does in her marriage is up to them and we can’t judge. She is no doormat though we are lead to believe she is. She is loyal and will fight for her family. The other one RV is the opposite. Although it is all a total waste of money. Colleen is right to stand up to RV.