Meghan Markle ANL court appeal. Thread 2.

[catinboots123]

For those that are interested - I know I am.

Does anyone know when the appeal judgement will be made.

Iirc There was at least one 2 hour meeting between JK and the writers of FF. I don't think anyone has said if there were any more as this was a one off statement rather than questioning a witness at a full trial which I believe can be hours long in real life.

I believe the FF details are considered significant as it contains details that others didn't have like nobody cried and the tiara story. (I know the nobody cried story is inaccurate but that's the story in FF)

Aspiring. The information about the meeting with the queen about tiaras was not in the public domain and could only have come “directly” from Meghan even if it was routed through JK.

@Roussette. I feel your pain. My best friend is nearly 6ft and is slender but not thin. She doesn't have loads of clothes but everything is classy, good quality and well put together. She can wear creased linen and still looks fab. She makes me 🤮 If it wasn't that she's the loveliest, most genuine, fun person in the world, I'd have nothing more to do with her. 😂

Banana. Cross post

Yes madison it's not FAIR !!

My bestie is a short arse but blimey does she put together fab casual stuff, and just looks sooooo good in it.

Hey ho, we can't all be good at everything!

How much do you think is a matter of personal interpretation when it comes to the statement about Finding Freedom? As far as I can see, there was essentially one email in which Meghan gave background information for Jason Knauf to relay to Omid Scobie - is that about it or was there more? And the wording of the original statement was that they didn't give interviews or collaborate (I think). So what is collaborating? If the background information was essentially what was always provided to journalists et al and wasn't exclusively given to Omid Scobie, and was in fact information already in the public sphere, does that rise to the level of collaboration?

I’m not sure if there are other emails, and I think what constitutes collaboration is a good question. I guess I think the most sensible thing to have done, given that it was a statement to court, would be to just say what happened rather than leave bits out. “We didn’t collaborate however I am aware JK met with the authors once and for this I provided some basic background info. I never met with or directly had contact with the authors, and this background info is the only thing I provided.” If this background info was standard and given to other journalists then mention that too. I think that would probably have been the safest option. Because you’re right, it doesn’t seem like a significant collaboration, but having to apologise for misleading the court (and enabling newspapers to write headlines “Meghan apologises for lying”) will damage your credibility far far more than an initial admission that your communications secretary gave them some basic info. It’s the classic “it’s not the action but the cover up”

@Aspiringmatriarch. From the emails I read, Meghan gave quite a bit of background information including writing what happened at the tiara trying on. Scobie et al reproduced that piece pretty much as she wrote it. Its not a big leap to think she wanted them to do that or she wouldn't have written it in the third person. I don't think if you have written a piece for a book you can say there was no collaboration. Plus now we know she lied about it, can we know for sure she didn't collaborate more after they'd left the Palace?

@Aspiringmatriarch the witness statement from JK says

‘the book was discussed directly with the duchess multiple times in person and over email’ and that Meghan gave him ‘helpful’ written ‘background reminders’ and briefing notes ‘for when you sit down with them’.

Scobie said "they did not authorise the book nor were they interviewed for it' I think most people would agree that not authorising, nor being interviewed are not the only ways in which you can collaborate.

It is true that many authors may have approached KP for background info such as that which JK supplied. The problem, as I see it, for MM/PH is that she could have said that from the get go 'we did not contribute to the book but as usual our office receives many requests for background information. Secondly, I think some of the nature of the information supplied goes beyond 'background' which I would take to be factual events and veers into 'putting their view point across' - i.e. the texts from harry about 'can you say this', plus points like the previously discussed additional information on Samantha Markle. To my mind, and others may well disagree, saying MM has no relationship with SM and has had no contact for x years is factual background. Going further and saying "she's lost custody of all her children - by different fathers' doesn't provide factual information about the state of MM/SM's relationship but feels to me to be a swipe at SM's morals and pretty misogynistic swipe too

[quote smilesy]Yes, going back to the thread topic, this came up on a news feed. I know it’s a gossipy site, but I thought it explained quite well why the emails about the contact with the authors of Finding Freedom were relevant to the Thomas Markle Letter case.

www.thedailybeast.com/did-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-forget-to-tell-a-uk-court-anything-else[/quote]
For every gossipy site saying FF is relevant, there is one saying it isn't.

From what I have seen so far, the brief JK presents regarding FF has nothing to do with the letter. Even if it had, it still would not be relevant, especially as FF came out later than the DM letter.

Just like the example I say about the queen and her speech, it was meant to go public, so long as she does not give permission, you don't publicise it.
Technically if you think about it, from both cases, HMQ or MM, could change their mind about the it going public, so you cannot publicise it, till she (HMQ or MM) publishes it.

I see in what you linked it says JK's husband is the one starting a new job overseas. I was wondering myself who would hire him after this. MM clearly states she is telling him in confidence. Whoever hires him would have to make sure, they put multiple NDA's in place, don't see how anyone could trust him. Maybe he will be a househusband, otherwise if you hire him, you would have to have eyes at the back of your head.

Secondly, I think some of the nature of the information supplied goes beyond 'background' which I would take to be factual events and veers into 'putting their view point across' - i.e. the texts from harry about 'can you say this'

Did Meghan’s statement cover Harry? Or was it just her collaboration (or lack off)?

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

Bit silly to say that MM has no effect on people's lives because she is not a politician. We are talking, potentially about an ability to manipulate our judicial systems, to get away with doing so. We are talking about the rich privilege which allows this and allows people to lie and get away with it in a way which average people don't. Or maybe we're talking about structural racism. Either way, it affects all of us.

it's ridiculous to say MM has the power to influence or change any UK laws. This is a woman who is slated as some kind of 'outsider' to the RF, how could she suddenly have such power.

@rubicscubicle

The criticism of the dress is just plain ridiculous and petty and mean. I don't think other royals get this.

And people are going to tell us they are neutral about Meghan.

Of course other royals get criticised about what they wear. That’s a ridiculous assertion.

@Aspiringmatriarch

Going back to the court case...

How much do you think is a matter of personal interpretation when it comes to the statement about Finding Freedom? As far as I can see, there was essentially one email in which Meghan gave background information for Jason Knauf to relay to Omid Scobie - is that about it or was there more? And the wording of the original statement was that they didn't give interviews or collaborate (I think). So what is collaborating? If the background information was essentially what was always provided to journalists et al and wasn't exclusively given to Omid Scobie, and was in fact information already in the public sphere, does that rise to the level of collaboration?

I would argue not really since it's clear from the emails they didn't commission the book or have any editorial control, weren't overly impressed with Scobie's accuracy, and didn't meet him to discuss it. What they provided was essentially the kind of briefing Jason Knauf would have been doing quite frequently as part of his role dealing with the media. Any thoughts on this characterisation?

I think what they did would have been fine for the most part (excepting some of the things about Samantha, especially if they aren't true), except for their repeated denials of having done exactly what they did. That's the problem, not the fact that they did it.

Aspiring and Sally. There were a number of emails between August 2018 and November 2018 mentioned in Jason Knauf’s witness statement, but I can’t find a link to them just now. I quoted from some of them on the other thread. In one of the first ones, Meghan asks if Scobie will leave out the bit about her friend being her personal stylist, as she asserts that she is in charge of her own style. Later she lists a number of points of clarification ( rather strangely writing about herself in the third person). Later still, she muses about inviting Scobie to cover a Royal event. Harry also sent emails to Knauf asking if Knauf was going to give some details to Scobie and if he wasn’t, could he (Harry) do it himself.

I remember Charles and Camilla getting slated for some daft looking matching outfits they wore shortly after they got married. Fergie has worn some awful stuff. And Beatrice and Eugenie's hats were the worst things I have ever seen on royals.

Omid was asked in the previous trial if he'd received a copy of the TM letter and denied it. With Meghan admitting some collaboration, I suspect that ANL want to ask again because Meghan and Omid have "misled" the court before. If Omid received a copy then ANL presumably argue that it's not really a private letter as he becomes a sixth (seventh if you include Omid's Co-writer) to have seen the letter

@Roussette

Skip As I've said more than once. I am talking about on MN.

Not other sites.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/style_and_beauty/3636939-Kate-s-Green-Dress

@Rinoachicken

Found it! Was slightly mistaken re the colour but still - not a great look!

And I’m sorry, if you truly believe that no other royal except Meghan is criticised for their outfits then you really have been living in a cupboard.

Do you not recall the endless criticism of Kate’s fly away hems???

If they are criticised less it’s because they actually listen to the people around them who are advising them on what would be most suitable!

Oh wow! That is awful 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Thank you for sharing @Rinoachicken

@SallyLockheart

Aspiring. The information about the meeting with the queen about tiaras was not in the public domain and could only have come “directly” from Meghan even if it was routed through JK.

Yes - I think the trouble is now that having misled the court about their involvement with Finding Freedom at the very outset, it’s not unreasonable at all to conclude that they were even more closely involved as the book developed.

Jason Knauf specifically says he doesn’t know anything about what contact there might have been with the authors after he left his role with them, and at the time he was involved with it, the book was intended to tell the story fo their romance and wrap up after Archie’s birth. That timeline, and the nature of the book, changed considerably in 2019 when it morphed into an account of the reasons why they left the Royal family.

Given that we also know that Meghan’s relationship with Omid Scobie became much closer (she was getting her legal team to send him copies of court documents as soon as they were filed, for example), and given the huge amount of detail of their royal lives in the finished book, I think it entirely possible, if not probable, that a great deal of its content came from them directly. Particularly the bits that seems to come across as settling personal scores.

@BananaPB

Omid was asked in the previous trial if he'd received a copy of the TM letter and denied it. With Meghan admitting some collaboration, I suspect that ANL want to ask again because Meghan and Omid have "misled" the court before. If Omid received a copy then ANL presumably argue that it's not really a private letter as he becomes a sixth (seventh if you include Omid's Co-writer) to have seen the letter

Given her texts say she wrote it in Toronto, when Omid tells us she was staying with Jessica Mulroney, it’s likely Jessica Mulroney has also seen it.

@SallyLockheart

Aspiring. The information about the meeting with the queen about tiaras was not in the public domain and could only have come “directly” from Meghan even if it was routed through JK.

The tiara story was one of the first smears on MM, right after the wedding it was plastered all over. Except it lied and said she threw a tantrum about a tiara she was refused.

Didnt like the red dress, but this one really suited her:

dailycaller.com/2018/10/26/meghan-markle-black-white-bird-gown/

it’s likely Jessica Mulroney has also seen it.

I think that she could possibly be one of the 5 friends who spoke with People magazine

@BananaPB

Omid was asked in the previous trial if he'd received a copy of the TM letter and denied it. With Meghan admitting some collaboration, I suspect that ANL want to ask again because Meghan and Omid have "misled" the court before. If Omid received a copy then ANL presumably argue that it's not really a private letter as he becomes a sixth (seventh if you include Omid's Co-writer) to have seen the letter

Are you saying that there is proof Scobie has seen the letter?

Even if so, how is 7 people public knowledge, and what has it got to do with copyright if those 7 people did get permission and the paper did not?

I have no idea if there is proof but he was asked at the first trial and he said no.