Meghan court case live today

[callmeadoctor]

[quote cabingirl]@TaliaB1 - but didn't you find some of the statements and the implied meaning behind them that she said in the Oprah interview a bit deliberately misleading?

Now - it could have been down to editing and the way the Oprah team wanted to make the drama larger for TV and Meghan had no control over that.

Here's one example

• the way she said she had to surrender her passport, driving licence and keys. Potentially a factual statement - could have been for security, for her team to arrange travel, for her team to swap her US licence for a UK one etc.

But the statement was used to imply she was a prisoner/or severely restricted. But that doesn't make any sense - she had 14 different overseas trips including several personal ones so she clearly had access to her passport whenever she wanted them. We've seen all the Royals driving themselves on a regular basis - they clearly have access to their car keys. What other keys were taken away? Keys to the house? Keys to her Canadian apartment?

So it wasn't necessarily a lie - but the implication was that the evil institution was holding her hostage.

There are quite a lot of moments all the way through like that - a hint / implication > big gasp from Oprah > no follow up question to actually get to the bottom of what is being implied.[/quote]
Yes it was the lack of follow up questions, even if they could have added to her case. So if OW had followed up the passport statement with "is that normal?" MM could have replied "Apparently so but it shows how little I knew about the RF".

The bit about Harry only telling her about curtseying in the car is also There is etiquette around meeting POTUS, so why on earth would she think it would be any different with the Queen? She must have spotted the way people acted around Harry.

Both of them come across as people who act before they think. They don’t take advice, they think they know it all and they both have an inflated sense of ego . Their judgement is flawed and they have no sense of how they will be perceived.
What sort of person writes a letter to her father for publication, deliberately choosing to use the word ‘Daddy’ to pull at the heartstrings. The calculation involved in deciding to do such a thing and discussing it with an aide is staggering.

The thing is that MM like another high profile politician has, I suspect, no concept of the truth. She just opens her mouth and says the most advantageous thing to herself. She’s not consciously lying because in her brain everything she says is ‘the truth’ she doesn’t understand ‘truth’ in the way that others might . She has used this ability to manipulate circumstances to her advantage for her whole life, what she failed to realise that she was now up against the triple whammy of the press , RF and the U.K. legal system.

I think initially she simply saw this as another way to make money ( Harry may have seen it as part of his crusade against the tabloids). In the US it would have been very likely that this type of case would have been settled out of court probably in her favour to avoid bad publicity with a big cash settlement. You can tell this because at the time of launching the case they were already briefing about how they would give a proportion of the damages to charity. However ANL have a big pot of money and saw this as a hill they were prepared to climb . They would not have continued the case if they didn’t think they had a good chance; they have a very good team albeit that they dropped the ball at the summary judgement.

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 .You have to be squeaky clean if you are going to do that and as has now been proved in a court, they aren't. Saying 'I'm sorry I forgot' is not going to cut it with most people and subsequently people will have little sympathy with the harsh media headlines and opinions that follow (see The Sun).

They need to heed the advice given to them if they themselves lack the ability to look further than the end of their noses.

I understand why she was cautious about the strong possibility of the letter being leaked, considering the appalling carry on of her family, it's no surprise she wrote it with that possibility to the forefront of her mind.

It is a bit calculating to use the 'daddy' title for the sole purpose of 'Pulling at the heartstrings' if it was to be leaked. However, her family had been utterly horrible about her publicly, so I can see why she would be hoping that people would be sympathetic to her.

Blimey, what an odd effect on memory can be caused by being a Brit royal. Somethin in tjhe water at Buck House? Prince Andrew? Er no, don't remember that at all. Duchess? Ooh no, no recollection of that. Anyone might think they have something to hide, which, of course, is absolutely impossible.

I find it hard to be that sympathetic to her - or either of them tbh.

Meghan was a hugely successful woman in her own right when she became involved with Harry. Anyone who has been through the Hollywood mill and risen to the top like she had, can’t be a shrinking violet. It’s a very ruthless business and not for the faint hearted. She would be well versed in self publicity, dealing with agents and negotiating the best deals.

She’s tried to present herself as some sort of naive, vulnerable woman which is starting to backfire badly. This rubbish about knowing nothing about one of the most famous families in the world! I’m positive that anyone with half a brain would look them up on the internet so I’m not convinced that’s even true.

I suspect she’s used to getting her own way and having a positive spin put on things by her agents - except this time she’s having to accept responsibility for her own behaviour. Harry just comes across as a pathetic little lapdog who is almost in awe of her.

@longwayoff

Blimey, what an odd effect on memory can be caused by being a Brit royal. Somethin in tjhe water at Buck House? Prince Andrew? Er no, don't remember that at all. Duchess? Ooh no, no recollection of that. Anyone might think they have something to hide, which, of course, is absolutely impossible.

Don't forget old HMQ suddenly 'remembering' all the gifts given to Burrell as he was about to spill his guts in court

What I don't buy is that someone can be savvy enough to think that a personal letter might get shared publicly & so write it to appeal to a wider audience, but also so naive that they'd get involved with a high profile person without checking them out online first, finding out ways to impress them and the important people in their life & what their life is like. If I was even going on a date with a US vice-president, I'd be googling what would be expected of me if the relationship were to progress. But then, it would never occur to me to think that a letter I wrote to my parent would be read by anyone other than them. Clearly, our minds work differently!

Harry just comes across as a pathetic little lapdog who is almost in awe of her.

The pool of women who would marry Harry is non-existent/minuscule (especially in the UK ) so he probably thought that he'd struck gold finding Meghan.

Gosh, how did I know this wasted of time case would have them crawling out of the woodworks.

Firstly, there is nothing new here. As was discussed on here several times before, the judge accused MM of collaborating with Scobie. We said in here that anyone who was given information by her office is then viewed as collaborating by the law. So if Lady C had bothered to ask, and was given answers she would be seen as collaborating, the same for A Morton, and the other 10 people who wrote books on MM.

So nothing new, and just like last time, she has had to hack back on no collaborating (which she previously viewed as meaning she had meetings with them)

Secondly, JK works for the palace (K&W to be specific) who told him to go against family members.

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?

She wasn't "hugely successful in Hollywood". She was sixth-billed in a soap opera filmed in Canada. And a Deal-or-no-deal girl. But yes, very successful at self-promotion.

Jk isn't 'going against' her. He has released emails which she and Harry wrote which clearly show that they have not told the truth. It would be a bit much to expect him to lie and perjure himself for them.

Meghan could shout on a clacton on CNN, reading her letter to everyone around the world. It still does not mean the DM can just publish her letter without her permission.

@StartupRepair

Jk isn't 'going against' her. He has released emails which she and Harry wrote which clearly show that they have not told the truth. It would be a bit much to expect him to lie and perjure himself for them.

He is going against if he with holds other emails showing what he responded to everyone else who made an enquiry.

Once again, who approved / instructed him to do this. He is still an employee.

Oh dear oh dear, how very embarrassing though not remotely surprising.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with rules for giving evidence in a British court. Maybe you could let MM know about them too.

@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?

Oh yes I think any crown version of this unedifying palaver will be a Scobie style load of cobblers. The Sussexes are the victims/everyone else the villains seeming to be their spiel. I'm really surprised anyone is still lapping up. I wonder if Netflix are thinking wtf yet.

I've never had to give evidence in court or supply a witness statement so my knowledge of court proceedings is somewhat limited - I'm sure @Serenster who has more knowledge of this can correct me if I'm wrong...
But my understanding of JK's evidence is that he is answering the question asked of him. I'm sure I've read somewhere that good legal advise for witnesses is only to answer the question asked.

So from ANL's perspective the question is "X" and JK answer's X - he doesn't say well yes X but also Y and Z

If MM's lawyers wish to expand the X question to include Y and Z they presumably can do so and if the Judge feels it is in scope, he'll allow it.

advice not advise...

Secondly, JK works for the palace (K&W to be specific) who told him to go against family members

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.
Anyway, it’s not relevant as Meghan has admitted the emails exist and her “lapse of
memory” about them. Trying to clutch at straws about who approved Knauf making a statement does not take away from the fact that porkies have been told.