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

The Guardian has a live feed. So do other media outlets, but that's the one I am keeping an eye on

On the balance of probabilities...

@MadamWhiteleigh you seem to be looking at this rationally and logically. This thread isn't that unfortunately. The only person they're interested in talking about is Harry and how this is him playing victim (whilst simultaneously pretending they care about hacking).

Guardian live feed

Why does have to mention What William felt about PB?
Why doesn’t he speak on his feelings alone?

This is just more of the same when he doesn’t care about revealing private opinions of others, but hates it if it’s done to him.

Rationality and logic do not follow from Harrys lack of actual evidence (ie facts) and disturbing lack of recall.

That's the usual accusation. Nasty people being mean.

From what I have read (and Harry's lawyers will get their chance to cross question the defence witnesses as well) so far there have been other potential sources for the info in the press articles in question, and Harry has not been able to point to any piece of info that proves hacking/illegal activity. Lots of general accusations (which are may be broadly true, but he needs to prove on the balance of probabilities that these specific articles show evidence of illegal activities).

It’s so ironic, isn’t it?

No I didn’t. I said PH’s lawyers will be arguing that strong circumstantial evidence should be taken into account and MGN’s lawyers will argue it shouldn’t be enough.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence, as far as I understand it. How 'strong' it has been so far is a matter of opinion, and the judge will rule on that in due course.

Court now on article 15

The headline is “When Harry Met Daddy: the biggest danger to wildlife in Africa”.
Harry complains that the article reveals private information about his life, namely about his meeting with his then girlfriend Chelsea Davy’s father.
The prime focus of the article related to the business of Davy’s father, a game-hunting enterprise.
Once again, Green points Harry to an article published the day before the Mirror article in question – namely in the Mail and that the Mail article has many of the details featured subsequently in the Mirror’s follow up.
Green suggests the Mail on Sunday article was based on an interview with Chelsea Davy’s uncle, Paul Davy.
“That’s what the article says,” Green says.
“Doesn’t mean it’s true Mr Green,” Harry replies.

oh dear.

he’s well into what my legal team called “tiger country”

I'll be honest. I thought this was an open and shut case. Hacking happened, Harry's phone at some point would have been hacked.

Now I'm not sure. I can't see any hard evidence here. Surely the balance of probabilities has to have something more.

The closest to it is the the called Paul Burrell a 2 faced shit (I mean he is...). Given that Harry left a voice mail, does that mean it was in fact William that was hacked? It sort of makes sense as William settled out of court so he might have had something concrete on them.

From the sky feed

Mr Coad adds that Prince Harry may have "discomforted" the judge by instigating a dialogue with him.
"He has done that on two occasions. One, he politely questioned the way in which he is being cross-examined. Two, he wanted to add something so he consciously turned from the KC to the judge and added something."
Mr Coad said it showed the duke is not "used to his surroundings" and it is establishing that he has a "slightly greater presence there than an ordinary human being because he is a member of the Royal Family".

That last line. 😂
Mr Coad needs to climb out of Harrys arsehole.

His case so far seems to be that the journalists who admitted to hacking and anything illegal were identified.

And then his legal team have looked for all of the articles these people had written about Harry.

And he is then assuming that ALL their information was obtained from illegal activities…

…Despite what they wrote being already in the public domain, or released by the palace, or attributable to other beamed individuals.

…and despite no hacking data evidence being shown to be connected to him, just other people…

…right…

This is a perfect example of Harry not believing he’s responsible for what he’s written.

Between 2019 (when this litigation started; witness statements would come many months down the line) and 2023 when Spare was published, Harry wrote two diametrically opposed versions of HIS OWN thoughts about something. Both, with conviction. One, to be submitted to a court of law. Today, he’s saying he doesn’t k ow which one is true.

He didn’t appreciate when he wrote/had that version ghost written, that there would be consequences to his words. Someone else has always come to clean up for him. He can just say what he thinks at the time and expect to be believed.

I get what you are saying, but do you think Harry has given any credible evidence, far less strong circumstantial evidence?

IMO he’s been a weak witness, with few facts and a lot of conjecture.

@TrashyPanda you have absolutely no idea what is or isn't fact.

The court will decide based on what evidence it hears and sees. Harry needs to prove on the balance of probabilities that the information was obtained by hacking - that's just the court deciding that there is a greater than 50% chance that the information was obtained in that way.

It would be enough - and that is what appears to be being challenged by AGKC that there simply isn't any other way that information could've been obtained and if the court accepts that, job done.

@PicturesOfDogs - whoops!!!

It’s a bit like Wagatha Christie. Rooney couldn’t show any direct contact between Vardy or her agent and the journalist, but things like the random loss of the agent’s phone into the sea, Vardy’s ‘broken’ laptop, the no-show of the agent in court was the sort of circumstantial evidence that, taken together with everything else, persuaded the judge that in the balance of probabilities, they had done what they were accused of.

@TrashyPanda you have absolutely no idea what is or isn't fact

actually, I do

he said he never walked along streets and that was demonstrably false!!

his own words show it is false.
photos show it is false

Definitely sounds like either he hasn’t paid attention, hasn’t read the court papers properly, or hasn’t understood them. Or he legal team are bunch of charlatans who have misled their client??

“Question about what Harry's legal team have shown him as ex-girlfriend brought up again

Andrew Green KC turns his questions to a 2004 Mirror article headlined "When Harry met daddy" - this revealed details of Prince Harry meeting his then-girlfriend Chelsy Davy's father in Africa for the first time.

Harry says in his witness statement that he is "at a complete loss" as to how the details in the story were obtained.

They included how he was "enjoying a holiday" with Ms Davy in Mozambique, and that the couple had flown over to the island of Bazaruto to meet other members of her family.

We're hearing from MGN lawyer Andrew Green KC that a previous report in the Mail on Sunday appeared to feature an interview from Ms Davy's uncle Paul Davy about the plans for his trip.

It reported similar details - including how the couple had been together for eight months at that point.

Harry points to this in his witness statement as being a notable part of the Mirror story - as it came less than a month after Ms Davy's name had appeared in the public domain. He claims Mirror journalists "knew far more" than they were reporting.

Mr Green queries if Harry's legal team has shown him the articles from different newspapers that MGN is relying on for its defence.

"To some extent," he responds.

But Harry says he had not been aware of the interview from Mr Davy.”

I'm so glad you came back. Its good to have expert advice. You can give us a realistic opinion based on your experience of taking cases to court, which I know is extensive.

From what you've heard so far, is the quality of Harry's evidence par for the course in successful court cases. Obviously he might be producing journalists to admit to hacking his phone, although I'm not sure that might end to a criminal conviction for them? Or he might, hopefully, have a different ace up his sleeve. But based purely on what we've seen, would his evidence so far be enough to win a case? Would you have taken a no-win, no-pay court case with this evidence so far?

I think if you say yes, then we all have to believe he has a good/fair case.

Yes, we all know about the balance of probablilities and how the court will decide.

it’s just that Harry hasn’t given any credible reason because he doesn’t have any actual evidence. And his lack of recall does not help either in establishing his credibility.

So it sounds like Harry’s no-show yesterday and his lack of recall today will not go down well with the judge.