Meghan's back in the movies

[AtIusvue]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15262991/Meghan-Markle-return-acting-Hollywood-new-film.html

I think she has harmed many people, I’m sure her employees she bullied felt very harmed just for starters.

You think...exactly you think...

I didnt realise you had seen the report in detail...do feel free to share its findings

Yes we know you think all her victims here in the UK and the US are all liars, I look forward to the day when the reports are released and her victims are released from their NDA’s so they can talk freely, hopefully they are still not in therapy from her bullying.

She was reprimanded for lying to a British Court.

Anyone else?

Very fair and insightful comment Jeff. It’s comments like this one that highlights which posters I respect, unlike the ones who blindly put them down / defend them without critically analysing the evidence available. I use the term ‘evidence’ to mean the stuff that we see online and in print ie what the presenters and writers want us to see. Obviously many things should be taken with a generous pinch of salt seeing as this couple generate much clickbait, but I do think there’s really no smoke without fire.

Hearsay evidence is admissible in court. You need to serve a Hearsay Notice to the other party, setting out which bits of the evidence you are relying on is hearsay, and why the original witness can't be called to give direct evidence. The other party then has the opportunity to apply to the court for an order that the person who originally gave the evidence appears for cross examination.

That's what's being fought over currently. Harry & Co want to rely on the hearsay evidence of Mr Burrows, contained in his witness statement of 2021, and have presumably served a hearsay notice. They have to rely on hearsay, because in 2023, Burrows served a second witness statement saying his 2021 statement was untrue and he hadn't signed it, and he won't give evidence on their behalf directly. The DM want to cross examine Burrows and have applied to the court to do this.

However, Shereborne for the claimants wants the DM's application for cross examination to be delayed until they (the DM) give disclosure about payments they made to Burrows (allegedly) to cover his legal fees. Those payments are, on the face of it, for legal fees that the DM paid on behalf of Burrows, to allow him to engage an independent solicitor, and to make a further statement (dated 2025) refuting the original 2021 statement where he admitted unlawful information gathering on behalf of the DM. Sherborne obviously thinks the DM paid for more than just legal fees.

I remember it all blew up with this witness in 2023, when he first withdrew his 2021 statement. I can't believe it's still unresolved. Most of the claimants are relying on Burrows' 2021 statement (admitting UIG) which he's been saying is false for 2 years. What a clusterfuck!

I wonder how far it will go though. Full trial will mean even more money and each side can only claim about 4 million if they win. Each side is expected to shell out 20 mill if it goes to trial.

Not sure how much of the 24 mill Harry would be expected to pay if they lose- at least 2-3 million I expect.

I don't think anything until the report is made available, I wont make assumptions until then. Thats how I am and generally I dont speculate or assume things on anything where possible particularly when it comes to people I don't know at all.

Have you got a link to the video?

hard to find the original video but it's from around 6 minutes here

s

Well you must agree she’s a liar then seeing as that’s been proven in court and she had to apologise? Waits patiently for the inevitable excuse…….

And yet at 21.29 yesterday you say that Andrew broke the law and harmed other people.

But that is speculation, there hasn't been a published 'report', or trial, or conviction.

Why the double standard?

Lol well we are all liars, we have all said a lie at least once in our lives. 💁‍♀️

Have you lied before a court of law @Spectre8, I haven’t?!

Ok then.

Very many thanks for the clarity about the hearsay evidence and the rest, @Indianrollerbird - that really helps

Glad You finally admit you are

No I have never lied to the British Courts, unlike Meghan, she got off very lightly considering it’s a criminal offence, duly noted how you have, as expected excused her offence. Going forward I will also bear in mind your statement above that everyone is innocent unless they are officially proven guilty and until then they can be robustly defended, and even if proven, they can still be excused. I also will remember that this is your stance when you discuss any other member of the royal family, it’s good to know your position.

Yes, and the absence of comment from some posters was very noticeable, Mylovelygreendress - though several turned to pouring loathing on Jason Knauf for his role in bringing the lies to light

They even used massive amounts of speculation as to what he'd done and how he did it ... fancy that

What's always astonishing about that is that Archie was still very young.

I couldn't possibly have held it together hearing about a baby dying when my son was little. My friends and I always stick to the code of keeping stuff like that away from new mum friends because we know it's hard to deal with. A distant acquaintance lost their baby recently, and we all had very spoiled toddlers for a few days because the idea of the alternative was too much.

So at the very best, maybe she was shutting down defensively because the other option was full on crying?

But then there's the gushing over her kids at the Parents Network event...

Someone online did a review of her candle…..it had no wick!

Attention to detail? As ever

My post was for @Spectre8

I look forward to reading @Spectre8 's defence of Andrew's lies!

She admitted lying to a casting director about being in an acting union to get a part. That can have serious consequences within the industry. She admitted those casting directors would never cast her again because of her lies. She said this during an interview for Suits, and said, "I'm such a fraud!"

During her Jamie Kern Lima interview, she gave an anecdote about having a friendly/meaningful encounter with Yasmeen Bleeth as a teen. Save that, pre Harry, she'd gone on film talking about the exact same encounter, and it was the complete opposite to how she'd told it to Lima - not friendly, certainly no conversation took place to make it meaningful.

She stole shoes from the Reitman's fashion shoot, allegedly.

I suspect she has a Walter Mitty-like relationship with the truth.

I'm pretty sure that Spector has posited that all lies are equal in the past. A lie is a lie is a lie. So while the lies of the type mentioned above are of little consequence in the great scheme of things, she is still a liar.

But yes, lying in court makes you guilty of contempt of court. So Meghan is also guilty of criminal behaviour.