The trials and tribulations of Harry - thread 2

[TrashyPanda]

Continuation of

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4812092-ph-lost-bid-to-challenge-for-right-to-pay-home-office-for-his-security?page=10&reply=126688485

I simply don't understand why, when invited to produce anything coherent, he says again and again "you'd have to ask the journalist"

To emphasise their absence, I guess.

Doesn't his lawyers have the option to subpoena the journalists? Perhaps that's what he means

But how is that going to help his case? He is the only witness for his portion of the case. Surely it's up to him to provide evidence, if he has any?

I've been on the receiving end of similar behaviour. An ex business partner decided that the way we were terminating his contract was Bad and Wrong, and thus carried out a sustained attempt to destroy our business, and to an extent me personally. Even when shown neutral third party proof that his perceptions were entirely incorrect, and that we had in fact planned generous terms for disengaging the relationship to make it as easy on his business as possible, he wouldn't budge from his initial perception of the situation.

It's immaterial whether the press are right or wrong in their behaviour (and it's obviously wrong). The train wreck in slow motion is how he's handling it.

(and although I don't claim to have remotely that level of experience with press intrusion, my own mother was a lifestyle journalist who played fast and loose with the truth about me in her articles, which resulted in public humiliation to me - so I think it's fair to say that I have at least some insight in how it feels)

At the moment there doesn't seem to be any info in the articles that couldn't be explained without hacking or other illegal activities. So nothing for the journalists to answer, given they don't have to reveal their sources.

That is based on the Guardian coverage, so there may be relevant info missed out, although the Guardian doesn't seem to have skin in the game.

Maybe, Madamwhiteleigh, but he's hardly doing himself any favours if he considers grandstanding a substitute for evidence. I keep hoping he'll produce something which actually proves his own allegations and so far it's simply not there

At best he is an unreliable witness (mobile phone) at worst he has deliberately lied (his own words and numerous photos show him out walking along streets)

IMO he is not credible and any circumstantial evidence he puts out must be viewed along with the factual evidence of his testimony today that was just plain wrong.

He needs actual evidence. What you call 'circumstantial evidence' of previous bad behaviour, previous bad character and so on is not considered evidence enough to find the defendant guilty. Evidence of prior bad behaviour, is only admissible if it backs up provable facts, such as witness statements.

To emphasise he doesn’t have any actual evidence at all but can’t bring himself to say that.

Lawyer asking him which version is correct - Harry can’t remember.

“In his witness statement, Harry says he and his brother "had very strong feelings about how indiscreet Paul had proven to be with the way he had sold our mother's possessions and how he had given numerous interviews about her".

He says he was "firmly against meeting him at this point" in his life.

But Mr Green turns to an excerpt from Harry's memoir "Spare", in which he describes how he would have wanted a meeting with Mr Burrell.

"There's no suggestion [here] that you were firmly against the meeting," the lawyer says to Harry.

"No, because I wrote it when I was 38 years old - in this story I was 18," Harry replies.

Mr Green says that's "not the point" and asks whether his witness statement or his recollection in Spare is the "correct" one.

After some more back on forth on this - Harry concedes that he can't remember what he would have wanted at the time.

But what is he bringing to phone hacking that we didn't already know? The Leveson enquiry went through this in detail. We also had the trials and subsequent imprisonment of journalists. What is there left to shine a spotlight on? I'm struggling to see anything new that we didn't already know in these allegations.

The only other reason I can see for him bringing the case is that he gets a satisfaction in stating his grievances which may be supported by evidence. And, in that case, I agree it won't be fun for him but it may be satisfying.

Doesn't his lawyers have the option to subpoena the journalists?

Whether they do or not, the journalists will simply say "not me guv", and keep saying it unless there's proof otherwise

Is it really possible that Harry believes something must be accepted - even in court - just because he says so?

Have you read his witness statement? If you ignore the guff, and go to the parts which address each individual article, there’s a lot of information they had that seemingly could only have come
from listening to his phone.

An argument with his dad where he slammed the phone down.

His flight times, which are obviously confidential for security reasons.

Chelsy Davy’s flight times.

A disagreement with William via voicemail about Paul Burrell.

That’s just a few I randomly selected.

What I can’t get is most of these articles harry has used, are total and utter irrelevancies. I mean who would hack harry;s phone to know he was delighted to lead a parade when the palace put out a statement the day before saying it. It’s ludicrous.

every single article he’s citing is just total and utter petty stuff, most of which was based on statements he or the palace put out. But he seems adamant that irrelevant of the palace putting it out before hand the info must have been gained by illegal means.

Is it really possible that Harry believes something must be accepted - even in court - just because he says so?

I'm only reading this and not the feeds but it's starting to look that way. Did his team not tell him he has to produce actual evidence?

Can't journalists refuse to reveal their source?

But that’s not right, surely you must know this, they were not flying themselves on private jets, multiple staff knew the flight times and fellow passengers.

the disagreement still needs to be questioned so we will see and the same with the phone slamming, if it even occurred, you need to wait to see the questioning, as you then get two sides, not just read his manifesto and believe it

You’re talking about criminal law there.

Did his team not tell him he has to produce actual evidence?

Presumably they must have done, though whether he took it on board is something else again

Did you leave a voicemail on Prince William’s phone calling former royal butler Paul Burrell a “two faced shit”? Green asks
I left voicemails on my brother’s phone and that is terminology I use to refer to Mr Burrell, Harry replies
But he adds he can not recall if he specifically left the voicemail

Harry really seems to have zero recall many times today.

This xchange is in relation to an article he specifically refers to in his witness statement. But he can’t remember if he ever left a voicemail.

that means he can’t say if the article was based on hacked info or if it was totally made up. Either could be true.

I suppose the journalist would lie in court. After all Harry's wife did.

I've no doubt he was hacked and I've no doubt everyone in the newspaper world knows that, but the case? No solid evidence, no solid witnesses, nothing substantial. Would have been better off spending his money on therapy to get over his mothers death and come to terms with the basic unfairness of life and learn to live with it, and appreciate the huge advantages he has always had and continues to have

Are people watching this? How are you keeping up with this?

Well, Judge Judy wouldn’t be having any of this carry on.

She’d be demanding proof 😆

I think the key to this is the word 'seemingly'. The problem with Harry's evidence is that he, like you, is presuming that that's the only way it could have happened but so far we see that there are alternative explanations.

I guess he's going for the weight of how many articles he's submitting, that if he can one or two that the judge might be open to be persuaded over, the amount of others might push the judge to finding in his favour.

@MadamWhiteleigh I'm talking about you saying circumstantial evidence alone is enough in the balance of probabilities, is enough to find for the claimant. It applies to both civil and criminal cases. you need evidence