Meghan court case live today

[callmeadoctor]

I hadnt made it clear I was referring to 6pm evening news. For me, this post was the first I'd heard of it. The interview this evening only focussed on "the constant berating" so appeared somewhat misleading for people who hadnt heard anything previously.

@BreadInCaptivity

That's a great post and I do get some of it

@Roussette

We have to bear in mind that JK went to Uni with Dan Wotton who has been a mouthpiece for hate of H&M and has been fed stuff

And yet, as I pointed out upthread, Meghan’s lawyers approached Jason to assist them with evidence in the case against ANL so they clearly did not regard him as hostile.

Apologies - important typo " I think it's hard to argue that this was a result of her ethnicity and nationality."

It should have said " this was NOT a result".

Sorry Serenster, don't get your point.
At the time, the Queen was younger, and would've been fully briefed on what was going on.
The Queen stopped a trial with remembering something.
Because of potential damage to the family

Ignoring all the legal stuff etc, how very sad that Harry never met her father before the wedding. Surely most brides would want that to happen. (I know people have said that a meeting was supposed to have been set up, but this was a ROYAL wedding and you havent met your father in law!) No wonder Charles was beside himself!

No, she quite clearly was intentionally not briefed about what was going on because of Paul Burrell’s close connection with the Royal family, and because neither the Police nor the CPS thought she might have relevant evidence.

This is not at all unusual. I have dealt with a few cases where the CEO of a public sector organisation was not updated on a particular matter because their involvement in it could give rise to a the perception of a conflict of interest.

And if you continue disagree, please do tell me then when the Queen was previously was asked about Paul Burrell’s story, didn’t remember him telling her anything, and then filed a statement with the court stating that…. As I presume you’re disagreeing based on facts here rather than assumptions?

Am confused by some posters namechanging on here. Just reminding posters to remember that they may have changed names.

@Gilmorehill

At the end of the day, it’s hard to understand why M never introduced her father to her future husband but expected him to rock up on the day and walk her down the aisle. Perhaps she was hoping he’d bottle it, which he did.

This is what I think happened. They hoped he'd do something to put himself out of contention, which he did.

Serenster
How in the name of all that is holy, would I know what her advisers said to her?
You don't know, I don't know
But I would presume she was briefed given the gravity if it

You are assumptions as much as me lol

@callmeadoctor

I don't NC unlike others

No, I am basing my view on what the QC told the Court when he had to tell them that the CPS could not continue with the prosecution.

As I said, you clearly think he is lying. I think that’s pretty damn unlikely.

What? Paul Burrell?

JK and Dan Wootton attended the same university? Which one was it?

yrtnews.com/meghan-markles-half-sister-accuses-duchess-of-public-relations-defamation-and-blows-up-her-grandiose-image/

Roussette, you're late to the party! Didn't think it would take 30 pages before you showed up. You've been doing good work on the 'is Johnson a disgusting scumbag' thread though so all is forgiven.

I think anything suggesting Harry flew to Mexico was in the realm of speculation rather than reporting anything verifiable. Apart from anything else, I've read reports saying Thomas Markle frequently crossed the border - think it's only about 10 miles away - from his town and visited LA. It would have made total sense to arrange for Harry to meet him there, as part of one of their visits to see Doria. For whatever reason that never happened. It remains odd that it didn't, since the narrative at the time was still that he'd been a loving and supportive dad.

@Roussette I've always valued your attempts at steering a fair course through these troubled waters. Are you honestly saying that the fact that MM/PH lied to the court (and wider) about their involvement in FF does not raise concerns in your mind about their credibility?

@Aspiringmatriarch

Harry flew to Mexico? When?

Maybe I'm wrong, I remember reading something about it but not that the prospective meeting was in Mexico - LA I think.

Yes, this was in LA.

At the time, the quotes were that Doria was able to do a public outing with them without being obvious as there were lots of people around, so harry could disappear in the crowd.

TM was asked to come to the wedding way in advance, maybe that was the chance for him to get to know H a little bit before the wedding.

@Skiptheheartsandflowers

Roussette, you're late to the party! Didn't think it would take 30 pages before you showed up. You've been doing good work on the 'is Johnson a disgusting scumbag' thread though so all is forgiven.

I think anything suggesting Harry flew to Mexico was in the realm of speculation rather than reporting anything verifiable. Apart from anything else, I've read reports saying Thomas Markle frequently crossed the border - think it's only about 10 miles away - from his town and visited LA. It would have made total sense to arrange for Harry to meet him there, as part of one of their visits to see Doria. For whatever reason that never happened. It remains odd that it didn't, since the narrative at the time was still that he'd been a loving and supportive dad.

Well he had no problem crossing the border and go deliver his letter asking Oprah to give him an interview, so not really hard for him.

@Roussette

What? Paul Burrell?

I think we are at cross purposes? I’m not trying to defend the good name of Paul Burrell, I promise!

I was talking about highly respected QC Bill Boyce, who was leading the prosecution of Burrell for the CPS. He said in his statement to the court

"The police said that, during a private meeting with the Queen in the weeks following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Mr Burrell had mentioned to the Queen that he had taken some of the Princess's papers for safekeeping."

Mr Boyce said Mr Burrell's original police statement did refer to a private meeting with the Queen but did not suggest he revealed he was holding property.

Mr Boyce added: "As a result, neither the police nor the prosecution asked the Queen about this private meeting with Mr Burrell.

Because the Queen's personal property was not involved and in a desire to avoid suggesting Buckingham Palace was trying to interfere with the investigation, the Queen was not briefed on the case, Mr Boyce added.

If you are seriously suggesting that one of the most senior and respected barristers around would be misleading the court in his statement, then I am telling you, you are wrong.

Oooops

Serenster spot on x

[quote smilesy]Also, as it seems Meghan authorised her friends to talk to People Magazine

Meghan has always maintained that she did not know her friends had talked to People Magazine

www.pressgazette.co.uk/meghan-markle-vs-mos-duchess-unaware-friends-told-people-magazine-about-letter-to-her-father/[/quote]
Really? Interesting. I find it hard to believe that 1) five different "close friends" of hers all decided it was wise to share a very personal letter with the media without her consent; and 2) after they all violated her privacy so egregiously, they remained close enough friends that she fought tooth and nail to protect their anonymity because she wanted to protect them.

One thing that I do take from this is that I think Harry & Meghan come across as protective of each other. She wanted to protect him from being “berated”; he wanted to get the message across to the Finding Freedom authors about what Meghan had been subjected to by the mainstream and social media.

Regardless of whether you think they’re more sinned against than sinning or vice versa, this indicates the strength of their feelings for each other and does them both credit, IMO.