Meghan court case live today

[callmeadoctor]

Meghan is basically a professional Victim.

Her witness statement read: "On October 20, 2020, my solicitors issued an application to adjourn the trial due to take place in January 2021.

"I was in the first trimester of my third pregnancy at the time (having suffered a miscarriage a few months prior) and was feeling very unwell.

"My doctor advised me to avoid stress, particularly given the recent miscarriage days after [The Mail on Sunday] threatened to break the confidentiality of the original 'sources' for the People magazine article, which resulted in my having to make an urgent application for an anonymity order.

"This was granted by Mr. Justice Warby, but I found the process extremely stressful, and it took its toll physically and emotionally.

@StormzyinaTCup
Now, in light of events over the last few days, whose statement am I more likely to believe .🤔.

Not only that but Harry threatened to sue if the allegation was repeated and the BBC came out and said the Palace was standing by what they said so the BBC repeated it. So what did Harry do? Nothing.

That's the problem with being litigious. When they don't sue, it's almost like a confirmation of the truth. A bit like the Beckhams and Rebecca Loos.

@BananaPB

I can't believe that Harry couldn't have been even called one of his friends for the contact details of a therapist. He will know some rich and powerful people who manage to see a therapist without the public having a clue.

Playing Devil's advocate here but is it possible that the royal approved doctors are UK based and Meghan might have preferred a US based person?

WRT hacking, I wonder if plastic surgeons and therapists are at risk from computer hackers who might want client info from their systems ?

He had his own private therapist who he must trust implicitly and is happy to use. He easily could have contacted him to speak to MM.

I don't buy there story that the palace did nothing to help. They would have been perfectly capable of helping themselves and it's a well known fact H has had therapy for years, he would know what's what. They didn't need to run it past HR first like they didn't have a clue how to go about getting help. I also don't believe MM was told they couldn't help they have their own money and resources at their disposal 24/7.

@islandbeach

Her witness statement read: "On October 20, 2020, my solicitors issued an application to adjourn the trial due to take place in January 2021.

"I was in the first trimester of my third pregnancy at the time (having suffered a miscarriage a few months prior) and was feeling very unwell.

"My doctor advised me to avoid stress, particularly given the recent miscarriage days after [The Mail on Sunday] threatened to break the confidentiality of the original 'sources' for the People magazine article, which resulted in my having to make an urgent application for an anonymity order.

"This was granted by Mr. Justice Warby, but I found the process extremely stressful, and it took its toll physically and emotionally.

I don’t understand why the court needs to hear about her stress.

Stress regarding the legal process which she initiated, I mean.

I think it’s meant to be mitigation for forgetting about the emails! I haven’t seen statement it in full but wondering if the full 23 pages is about why she forgot.

@islandbeach
"In meghans latest witness statement about why she forgot about her involvement in finding freedom, she included that her miscarriage happened a couple of days after ANL were going to name the 5 friends and she had the stress of the injunction. It very much was written in a way to suggest that the stress ANL put her under caused her miscarriage."
..............

I don't believe she's a stupid person at all. And I don't believe Schillings employ stupid lawyers. It was all over the press that the MoS wanted to depose the silent 5 and reveal their names. ( In fact I think the names have been revealed somewhere. ) So she must have been aware of what was coming and her lawyers briefed on how to handle it. She wasn't stressed when she sent the 5 out to do her PR for her, and if she was confident they'd not done anything wrong, why would she be that stressed if their names got out. Names that were already out there. It just doesn't hangbyogether as an argument.
However, on the other hand, what one person finds stressful, another finds a breeze and vice versa, so maybe its wrong to judge.
Advice for future is... to avoid stress, have clean hands in all your dealings, Meghan. (Very sad about the baby though.)

@rubicscubicle

So I’m not sure how you can keep insisting everything they say is as good as fact. They are misleading people.

And why does anyone keep insisting that the palace is good as fact when they have lied so much too.

If we are to believe reports, Charles wanted to issue a point by point rebuttal and no doubt he had something to say about this.
And why didn't he ? After all, the palace was fine with embroiling themselves in trolling a newborn by 'correcting' the story about baby Lili - a strange battle to pick to stand on.

recollections may vary statement.
I wish people would stop being so smug about this phrase which is incredibly rude and disrespectful to people of colour, dismissing racism claims in this way when you head the commonwealth is just vile.

So nobody can challenge what a person of colour says? Even if we know that what they are saying is not correct or taken out of context?

Sorry, but leaving Meghan out of it for a moment I think it’s really important to state for anyone reading this who worries about stress around pregnancy that the NHS, WHO, CDC, royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, and the American college of obstetricians and gynaecologists all say there is no proof of a link between stress and miscarriage.

@SickAndTiredAgain are you a doctor or specialist. Several articles refer to the fact that stress may cause miscarriage. They cannot prove it, but neither can they disprove it. So everyone is advised to err on caution.

Infact it's not new to know people suffer from maladies that go away when the stress goes, from a chronic sore throat and other minor ailments, which suddenly go away with removal of the stress trigger. I wish you would not give such advice. Medical practitioners, always tell people to be careful and err on the side of caution for a reason, when they are not sure.

this is just one example of findings, but there are quite a few out there, the may not be very decisive, but your post seems rather sure and I don't know why.

www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030605/how-stress-causes-miscarriage#1

Recollections may vary doesn't necessarily mean "it didn't happen" I see it as "it didn't happen like that"
I think that the Queen knows who the Sussexes were talking about and spoke to that person with regards to this. Don't forget that there are 2 versions with regards to the timing of this.
Some of the allegations that Harry has made have been told with different details each time. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the truth could be one of Harry's multiple versions but it might be how the other person remembers it or a totally different narrative.

The RF is more believed because they say less. The Never Complain thing works well because people can't question a narrative that they've never heard. (Before you say if I know that some members have been on whinges to Dimbleby etc ) Harry has said so much that he has inevitably made errors (I am assuming that nobody edited interviews to be more 🔥) and these errors together with what has transpired this week makes him look like an unreliable witness. Until now Meghan has only really publicly spoken about the RF during the Oprah interview so there is less "evidence" for us amateur sleuths to mull over. But now people will be reading the legal documents and FF to find inconsistencies.

Forget what I said at the end. People regularly bring up stuff that she said on The Tig. A good lesson for our kids not to bare it all on the Internet

I've just been reading the emails between M&H and Knauf. She says that Harry is being berated by the family and asking why Meghan couldn't just go talk to her father in person. She says the RF has forgotten the context and don't understand.

So my question is, does anyone know why she couldn't just visit him in person? It sounds like common sense to communicate directly rather than with texts. What was the context? And what didn't the RF understand.
I feel like I have a big hole in my knowledge somewhere.

... the law firm Schillings, which acts for Prince Harry and Meghan, said the BBC report that the Queen was not asked for permission to use the name Lilibet was false and defamatory and should not be repeated

(This)was made by the same law firm that stood up in court and said categorically their clients had nothing to do with 'Finding Freedom'

I'd say Schillings must be pretty cross, except I doubt it's the first time a client's lied
Does anyone (@Serenster ?)know what happens in cases such as this? Is it likely they'd refuse future representation?

Meghan chose to bring this particular family grievance to the globe, which was the most serious allegation, and the Queen is allowed to defend her family regardless of being head of the commonwealth.

Except she did not defend anything ,did she. It was a throwaway dismissing statement - highlighting the racism claim to boot. Defending is saying something along the lines that : we spoke to the person involved, they feel they were misunderstood and actually meant abc (don't know what they could have meant).

Also disrespectful to those affected to MH. No reason or explanation given as to why she was not helped.

Why do you think they didn’t name the royal or what the specific conversation was?
It's not up to H&M to name the person, the palace could name them if they wanted, but that is not really required, they just did not have any explanation of why this person said what they said.

Pretty easy to guess why Charles didn’t do his point by point rebuttal given his mother is the Queen. hmm
Yet he had no qualms about talking about Harry's finances and the palace had no issue inserting themselves in the baby debacle.

I'd say Schillings must be pretty cross, or busy counting their money. 😉

@islandbeach

I think it’s meant to be mitigation for forgetting about the emails! I haven’t seen statement it in full but wondering if the full 23 pages is about why she forgot.

Harry knew about the emails.

Except she did not defend anything ,did she. It was a throwaway dismissing statement

She's not dismissing it. The world, apart from you apparently, knows that she's saying nicely that Meghan is not telling the truth. That's not racist. Meghan lied in her interview saying it was several conversations with her husband, not her, whilst she was pregnant. Harry said it was one conversation before they were married. Meghan lied in her court documents. That's not a racist statement. That's fact.
Criticism of a biracial person does not mean it's racism in action. Biracial people can do things that deserve criticism.

@rubicscubicle the only thing my post is sure of is the position of the medical bodies I referenced. I wasn’t giving medical advice, nor was I stating the cause of a stranger’s miscarriage as you did. I was simply saying, in response to a post stating miscarriages are caused by stress, that that is not the position of nationally and internationally renowned medical bodies. They state it quite clearly, so while I’m sure it’s something being studied, I felt it was important to say that there was no proof of a link, because I know from experience that it can be quite upsetting to read something that makes you question whether there was something you could have done differently to prevent a miscarriage.

("Some recollections may vary" was a throwaway dismissing statement - highlighting the racism claim to boot

As most know I'm the very last to defend the RF, but that one seems a bit disingenuous; after all they highted the seriousness of the alleged racism by saying "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning"

Of course it may just have been lip service, but all in all the statement seemed too oblique to draw any firm conclusions ... which was doubtless the intent

What we have here is a couple who have now over prolonged period of time called their integrity into question.

They have demonstrably been proven to mislead/misrepresent the public over not one, but numerous events/facts.

They have have even contradicted their each other or even their own version of events or the timing of it.

In addition to that we now find they have mislead their legal team and the courts apparently through a failure to remember extremely detailed briefings and a highly considered time consuming to draft letter that at was at the centre of the case.

All their versions of truth, have had the presumably utterly coincidentally resulted in supporting their narrative as a victimised, bullied and unsupported couple whist simultaneously causing reputational damage to others (the RF, their own legal team, members of the RF, people who worked for them).

The only rational response to this information is to assume that anything they have said, or say in the future cannot be taken at face value or even with a great deal of skepticism.

The whataboutry on this thread doesn't absolve them of the damage they have done to both others and themselves - whether it was intentional or not.

Infact it's not new to know people suffer from maladies that go away when the stress goes, from a chronic sore throat and other minor ailments, which suddenly go away with removal of the stress trigger. I wish you would not give such advice. Medical practitioners, always tell people to be careful and err on the side of caution for a reason, when they are not sure

I think the point in highlighting that the link between stress and miscarriage is not proven was in order to prevent anyone who is worried about stress to also worry about miscarriage. Which is what sickandtired said in her post.

Ooo, @BreadInCaptivity. Very good. Spot on.

A few thoughts.

The Mail's argument that the letter was intended for publication is clearly irrelevant to the copyright claim. If I write a novel and the Mail gets hold of a copy of the manuscript before it is published, does that allow them to print large sections of it without my permission and without compensation? Of course not.

Meghan's failure to inform the High Court that her former comms secretary provided some information for an unauthorised biography is, in my view, irrelevant to the case. It is likely that this information would have been part of disclosure had the case gone to trial, but the judge stopped the case before it got that far on the grounds that publishing her private letter was clearly excessive and unlawful. It seems highly unlikely that any co-operation she or others around her gave to an unauthorised biography would have altered that judgement.

She will not be prosecuted for perjury (and nor would anyone else in this situation) as, in order to get a guilty verdict, the prosecution would have to show that she knowingly gave false information as opposed to giving information that she genuinely, but mistakenly, believed was true, and that this information was significant to the case. In my view the prosecution would fail on both fronts.

Why are Associated Newspapers trying to overturn the verdict? Is it because they think they will win at trial? I doubt it. I really don't rate their chances even if the Court of Appeal does send it to trial. The Mail are doing this because they want the circus of a trial so they can use it to try and damage Meghan's reputation. They hope that some of the mud they throw at her will stick so that they can sell more newspapers. After all, that has worked well for them up to now.

I am sure their lawyers would have told them prior to publication that they could face a claim for invasion of privacy and breach of copyright, and that they would probably lose. They went ahead and published anyway because they thought the opportunity to destroy her reputation would be worth it in sensation and increased profits. They want to destroy Meghan so that they can profit from it.