Duke of Sussex & Others v ANL: thread 2

[bluegreygreen]

This is a continuation of the discussion on the previous thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5443044-duke-of-sussex-court-case-key-witness-statement-false?page=1

We are following the court case on the

In terms of providing evidence for her claim, how is Doreen Lawrence going to distinguish between alleged unlawful spying by the Police, and alleged unlawful spying by ANL?

I would say that Doreen Lawrence is pretty vulnerable in the area of feeling spied upon and lied to. I suspect that someone has been exploiting this.

That's a very good point @TheAutumnCrow.

Which makes the decision to pull her in even worse.

I am sure this might have been covered but is anyone else a bit puzzled about DL suing ANL when it was the DM who memorably fought to bring Stephen’s ( alleged) killers to justice ?

I would hope that DL asked this very question at some point; and that the answer she got was one that explains why she is still here.

In such a position, I would have asked a subsidiary question about the possibility of suing the misleading party, if you found out you had been misled into joining legal action.

I remember this headline as if it were yesterday. Paul Dacre (Daily Mail) put his neck on the line for Neville Lawrence who was doing some work for him in his house.

https://www.journalism.co.uk/daily-mail-wins-praise-for-stephen-lawrence-campaign/

Exactly . Hence my puzzlement.

Thank you @Lunde for the link I finally managed to open after @RecoIIectionsMayVary told me not to use vpn.
Good article and fair but it doesn't look good for the claimants or Sherborn.

I don’t believe there would have been any convictions in the SL case without the DM. They kept the case in the public eye and put their necks on the line. I particularly remember the front page naming killers and saying something like ‘sue us if we are wrong’. Paul Dacre does deserve a lot of credit for that.

@Mylovelygreendress my understanding is that part of her claim relates to the time before ANL got involved in backing the case.
One of the 'blagging' claims is that Christine Hart, a freelance investigator on behalf of ANL, rang up DL during this time to get quotes by saying she was from the Guardian, which she thought would make her more sympathetic to the request.
Obviously I don't condone anyone being misled, but DL supplied the quotes on the understanding that they would be published.
She also says she has seen evidence that ANL hacked and tapped her phone while supporting her, and made payments to the police.
Regardless of the fact that ANL essentially helped the family achieve justice - and visibility - in Stephen's case, I guess you would feel very betrayed if you thought that was true.

Thanks @PrayForMyBum. oh and I love your user name ! As someone who fell off a stepladder yesterday onto a hard floor , maybe you could pray for mine too !?

Presumably if anyone was deliberately misled by a lawyer then there is a mechanism to be compensated for any loss that ensues?

38 million pounds of losses...

I'm also in the I hope DL hasn't been misled camp. Now , She is clearly a determined and persistent woman . & No fool she , I would say. & I have a great deal of admiration for her. If and only if H & the other claimants have misled her then shame on them. But this isn't her first rodeo so I hope she comes to her own conclusions and I wish her well.

DL also has postgrad humanities and counselling skills. Its easy to say looking from the outside but I would have thought her chosen field would have alerted her to Harrys motivation. Im no psychologist but harrys anger, paranoia, greed and vindictive nature is on show, loud & proud.
I also wouldnt think she is the type to be easily duped.

Heather Mills was always portrayed as a greedy, argumentative woman and she wasnt taken in by them.

On the link from @Lunde one of the comments was about George Michael distancing himself from Elton because he was too cozy and gossipy with the tabloids. So not sure Elton can be trusted either!

Happy to get behind that, @BasiliskStare.

Several different but parallel thoughts in my head on this -

If anyone (lawyers, Hacked Off, or Harry) misled DL (or anyone else) that is horrendous. I hope, as @Baital says, there would be some mechanism for redress.

I hope each claimant has done their own due diligence and are happy to stand over what they say in court - because they will be held accountable.

There may be some evidence, but it may not be enough to prove the case 'on the balance of probabilities'.

Cross-posted @binkie163 - very good points, though I suppose it's always possible to have a bit of a blind spot when it's an area you've been hurt/upset in before.

Yes I am, @bluegreygreen, and like others I hope she has better judgement than to have allowed herself to be pulled in by others with perhaps questionable motives

However even Doreen has agency, and she could presumably have said no

Not me but a lovelier green 😊

Has she said

she has seen evidence that ANL hacked and tapped her phone

though?

I don't recall reading anywhere that she had testified to actually seeing evidence. But then, the coverage of her in-court testimony that I have seen has been garbled.

I think without the live reporting some of the articles have been a bit garbled.

I'm really not sure DL has testified as it makes no sense for her to testify in the middle of Evan Harris' evidence on Thursday - only for him to go back to the witness box on Friday (he seems to have testified Wednesday, Thursday, & Friday)

What might have happened is that EH from HO was confronted with DL's words - ie from her witness statement.

It's all a bit odd. Didn't someone say that DL was supposed to give evidence after PH and LH? - but that Sherborne shuffled the order

@Lunde she hasn't testified yet. Reporting of what she has 'said' comes from her witness statement and what she has also said publicly previously about the case.

And yes, the draft schedule had DL testifying immediately after Harry. No idea whether Sherborne shuffled the order, but obviously Harry wasn't on the stand for as long as had been anticipated, while ANL's barrister also finished up his opening much quicker than expected - so it's entirely possible it's about her availability rather than anything more sinister or deliberately manipulated. Guess we'll find out!

@binkie163 I've heard that the source for many of the Elton stories was Furnish himself.... if that's true, it should be interesting to say the least to hear what he has to say (he was on the witness list too).

Although it was widely reported that Harry and DL spent the afternoon together at the House of Lords (he left court while LH was testifying) so it is odd that she wouldn't be "available" on that day

Has Harry gone home yet?

He was in Colorado for the Sundance Film Festival last weekend.