Meghan court case live today

[callmeadoctor]

Trying to control the narrative and the media was never going to work. You cannot dictate and try and control what's put out and think you can just sue what doesn't suit. They are as guilty themselves as the platforms/media outlets they are criticising

Agreed, but let's not forget Harry's used to being among people who cut deals and exert pressure to control exactly that - so I'm prepared to believe he assured her that Knauf would be gagged
That said, Serenster's take on the summary judgement was interesting, in that it might have been pressed for to get the whole thing wrapped before more detail was requested

Anyway it'll be interesting to see what H&M do next. The frequent M.O. would be to publicise some new grievance or run a few podcasts about the importance of this or that, but whether that'll happen this time is anyone's guess

If somebody gives statements to a court which are untrue (whether it be due to deliberate lies, forgetfulness or mistake) would that not then make them an unreliable witness. Legally speaking.

@MsDidoTwite

Gosh! This unravelling of the Sussexes ( version of) ‘truth’ will make for such a truly Machiavellian episode of The Crown, even I might watch it. Unless, of course, H&M (Windsor branch) have been savvy enough to gag Netflix from using the material, as part of their deal . Are they really that influential?

I think they'll find that Netflix, having got what they wanted, will cool noticeably if they try to exert that type of influence. It looks increasingly that Netflix simply wanted the publicity the association gives them and are less bothered about the whole 'inspiring content' side of it. They know what sells (Squid Game, anyone!) and will want to exploit that to the full. Again, something the Sussexes should have anticipated.

As pp have already stated, ANL already had this witness statement from Knauf. They didn’t produce it previously as their argument was that as it existed it should be brought up on a trial. Judge Warby disagreed and dismissed the case. ANL realised their mistake and in gong to appeal have managed to submit the witness statement in advance

My fault - I'd missed that ANL already had the statement, so lost some of the significance

Either way, since ANL's main aim is to make a fortune out of this, it was a pretty clever move - not necessarily something to admire, but clever all the same (and the benefits for Meghan of that summary judgement become clearer all the time)

I think ANL's main aim is to get more content like the identities of the 5 friends who spoke to People magazine.

Plus will losing a case to ANL mean fewer future lawsuits against the media?

I find the whole situation utterly bizarre.

For the most part, I think the whole "megxit" thing is of Harry's making. I can fully believe she didn't really understand what marrying into the royal family would entail - let's be honest, that would be a huge shock to anybody, let alone someone not from this country. So I have huge empathy for her in that respect. Even if she did research it, the theory and the reality would still be a collosal head fuck.

However, Harry's last two girlfriends both dumped him because they couldn't cope with the pressures. Therefore, he should have made damn sure that M knew what she was getting into. That's on him No one else. It was his responsibility.

I've always thought that H had the hot-headedness Spencer trait. Let's be honest, Diana was well known for cutting off people who she believed had 'wronged' her.

I think that he always had the royals to talk him down and calm him down to prevent him acting irrationally. I suspect Kate and William in particular knew how to "manage" him. But with Meghan, I don't think she's ever done that. I think rather than saying "look calm down, lets figure it out", whenever he's taken offence, it's very much "I agree, you have been wronged, let's fight it" - so there's now two people who are egging each other one which IMO has created this whole situation.

For this court case, it's staggering that they've egged each other one to get to this point. Her "forgetfulness" certainly relates back to the Queen's "recollections may vary" statement, and surely she's now been proven to be a legally unreliable witness?

“Duke to Mr Knauf

“Also, are u planning on giving them a rough idea of what she’s been through over the last 2yrs? Media onslaught, cyber bullying on a different scale, puppeteering Thomas Markle etc etc etc. Even if they choose not to use it, they should hear what it was like from someone who was in the thick of it. So if you aren’t planning on telling them, can I ?!”

I was just reading through the emails. There are a lot of them from both Meghan and Harry so I’m struggling to understand how they were “forgotten “. The one above struck me particularly. Harry asking if he could “tell” if Knauf was not going to. It’s like a 7 year old in a playground wanting to tell tales 🙄

What exactly does puppeteering Thomas Markle mean.

@Viviennemary

What exactly does puppeteering Thomas Markle mean.

I would guess he means something like the media using Thomas Markle as a puppet to get at Meghan.

Shows it would have been a lot wiser for her to keep him onside all along.

Plus will losing a case to ANL mean fewer future lawsuits against the media?

Like Andrew, I'm not convinced they'll be allowed to be seen to lose anything (except a lot of credibility in the "court of public opinion")

Not because of the rights and wrongs of the issue, but because the palace must know by now what H&M's reaction could be - and the palace, as we've all seen, consider their own image an absolute priority

Of course, if ANL feel they've been stitched up then much more could follow; they also have a long reach and they'll make the very most of it, especially as they've got a couple of targets whose decisions aren't always the wisest

I have peaked with Meghan today. She wrote ‘daddy’ to pull on our heartstrings? Heard it all now. Off you trot.

So is the issue that Meghan sent a list of things she wanted clarified to people who were writing a book about her? Is that collaborating? Genuine question. If I was collaborating on something I would mean it in the sense of interviews and anecdotes etc. Like Diana did with the Andrew Morton (?) book.

Secondly the letter to Thomas Markle was written on the advice of KP. I agree it's a bit manipulative to call him daddy but if that's what she usually called him then why not? She obviously always knew there was a chance he would leak it, she's not stupid, but it was nonetheless a private letter and that's the essence of the case against ANL as I understand it? Things had obviously broken down pretty irretrievably with TM, I think there was an element of covering all her bases with the letter but that doesn't mean that it was expressly intended for public view. I'm not a legal expert but that's my take on it.

Also how dispiriting to see another thread ripping MM apart. She's a human being who has been through something very difficult, give the poor woman a break.

Thanks skip. I don't think they did. He used the press to get his side of the story over. Like H&M did with the Oprah interview. OK for them but not OK for anyone else.

@Aspiringmatriarch TM only went to the Mail on Sunday after Meghan authorised 5 friends to discuss the letter with People magazine. I can see how he'd fall into the trap of thinking he'd make it public if its existence is in the public domain.

I think that the hypothesis that she sued because extracts rather than the whole letter is published is interesting.

@AspiringmatriarchTM only went to the Mail on Sunday after Meghan authorised 5 friends to discuss the letter with People magazine. I can see how he'd fall into the trap of thinking he'd make it public if its existence is in the public domain.

Ah ok. Is this an established fact (authorising the 5 friends)? I have heard it before but not followed closely.

I agree with you @Aspiringmatriarch

It doesn’t matter whether Meghan anticipated that her father, or anyone else who had a copy of the letter, shared it with the press. The copyright still belongs to her and the law is on her side hence the original judgement.

It must be awful for her to have a parent who does not protect her and I don’t blame her for cutting off communication with him. Selling out on your daughter is a despicable thing to do and that is exactly what Thomas Markle did by setting up the paparazzi shots that sparked off this whole sorry affair in the first place.

I think I must have missed something here.

If I wrote a letter to a member of my family and they went public with it and sold it to the highest bidder, my beef would be with that person and I be pursuing them in court, , not the paper that published it.

So is the issue that Meghan sent a list of things she wanted clarified to people who were writing a book about her? Is that collaborating?

I think this is part of the explanation Meghan has used for forgetting about it - it wasn’t anything particularly unusual that she would specifically remember and she wouldn’t consider it collaboration. I do think that could be considered fair enough, although I also think that if I were submitting something to the court swearing I’d had nothing to do with it, I’d want be really sure of what I was saying.

[quote Aspiringmatriarch]**@AspiringmatriarchTM only went to the Mail on Sunday after Meghan authorised 5 friends to discuss the letter with People magazine. I can see how he'd fall into the trap of thinking he'd make it public if its existence is in the public domain.

Ah ok. Is this an established fact (authorising the 5 friends)? I have heard it before but not followed closely.[/quote]
Yes she said that in previous legal documents

Yes she said that in previous legal documents

Ok, thanks. I'd forgotten.

@HAhelp

Am a bit shocked by this part in Meghan's email

"She [Samantha] had lost custody of all three of her children from three different fathers"

Clearly, Meghan and Samantha don't have a relationship, Meghan is rightly hacked off at Samantha trying to make money out of their tenuous (non) relationship.

Meghan can absolutely and justifiably rebut everything Samantha says - but why give this information? Why reference the different fathers - it just feels a bit Stan Collymore with his 4x4 reference...

I agree, a really nasty thing to say.

'Am a bit shocked by this part in Meghan's email'

"She [Samantha] had lost custody of all three of her children from three different fathers"

Utterly vile and they whine about their own privacy being breached.

If I wrote a letter to a member of my family and they went public with it and sold it to the highest bidder, my beef would be with that person and I be pursuing them in court, , not the paper that published it.

The Mail contacted TM after her friends Mentioned it in People magazine,
And he sold it to them,
The Mail did what they do < jumped on it before anyone else did > . If her friends stayed quiet none of this would have happened .
So if they are after the person who leaked the letter it means they are literally after their own friends and themselves as this really leads back to them ,
I can’t warp my head around the whole thing