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

Can't find anything on the Telegraph. Their normal correspondent was out and about with Catherine today.

Harry thinks he is "David" in a David and Goliath situation? ... a literal Prince and a bunch of millionaire celebrities and obscenely wealthy political backers who can afford to fund a £38 million essentially vanity case about only wanting their PR releases printed?

The only one I would exclude and would actually classify as a "David" is Doreen Lawrence - but as I said previously, I believe she was duped on the basis of the (recanted) Burrows' dodgy dossier and it's lurid claims of planting bugs.

I allege that Burrows has helped many previous claimants for other newspapers. His argument is that he never worked for ANL.

It’s Mr Johnson and the research team who seem to be the dodgiest. I do not believe much of what comes out of Johnson or the research team’s mouths.

Johnson also seems to have an extremely chequered past.

Everyone, whether it’s the research team, the lawyers, or the funders - the now deceased Max Mosley, Geoff Stunt etc, appear to be all very closely linked. Johnson’s partner, for example is a board member of Hacked Off. She is also a former journalist. Impress, was also bank rolled by Mosley.

You also have other Private Investigators who have allegedly said they have been threatened by people linked to Hacked Off or Bylines.

There was an investigator who gave evidence for the Mirror who said they were threatened. I cannot remember his name.

That’s quite a few investigators who are all coming out and saying the same things. Many were also promised book deals or film deals.

It is as though Johnson and the research team have weaved Burrows evidence for other newspapers, into a statement that was then used for alleged claims against ANL. I remember reading that somewhere.

Why would you put your name to a paper that you never worked for?

I think there is far more to this that we probably don’t know.

I think Burrows made a statement in 2023 stating that he never worked for ANL. They had all that time….but they still used it anyway.

The Judge seems to be losing patience quickly. There is simply no evidence it seems.

BBC article on today's evidence - Liz Hartley ANL's lawyer at the time of Leveson

It seems to be same-old, same-old with Sherborne trying to reopen the 2011 Leveson Inquiry and throw mud to see what sticks

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r1l253ne5o

What an offensive, stupid thing for him to say to those bereaved parents. I wonder if he trots that shit out to Doreen Lawrence when he sees her? So manipulative.

I hope MM has a plan B because H looks and sounds like he's in mental crisis.

This is the problem of Mosely, Harris and Johnson's strategy of paying cash for witnesses - they threw around huge sums of money it return for statements - cash, book deals, apartments and also threats

I think that many of these marginal investigators were lured by the prospect of huge money for witness statements. So there was a great incentive for them to embellish statements to conform to Hacked-Off's narrative with the promise of cash and benefits. For an ex-con like Gavin Burrows £5,000 a month is probably more than he could dream of for the dodgy dossier "research" .... and then he was paid £25,000 for the rights to his autobiography and other payments.

But I doubt any of the investigators thought it was going to trial....

I read somewhere that Burrows did not need the money at all and was living in an affluent area when Johnson left a note under his door.

I don’t think I read anywhere that he was an ex-con.

Other investigators such as Jonathan Rees were also offered money. I think that was in a publication called the Upsetter.

This is all very interesting. For nearly five hours the ANL lawyer Liz Hartley was questioned. Awful behaviour was talked about that yes, on the face of it, sounds damning. However this has been looked at by Office of the Information Commissioner and litigated.

Did the claimants have anything new to add, in terms of evidence rather than inferences?

Sorry I think I was thinking of Glenn Mulcaire who was featured in one of the Hacked Off associated Byline Times articles IIRC Mulcaire got a 6 month suspended sentence for hacking for NOTW

It seems odd that despite all the "evidence" they claim, and after 4 weeks of court hearings there are no specifics that link UIG to the actual articles under review and Sherborne seems to be conducting an uber-expensive fishing expedition!

I had forgotten about him! You are absolutely right. Very interesting.

And, as pointed out in the Telegraph report of the trial from yesterday -

Mr Dacre pointed to a report by the Information Commissioner, which found no evidence that any journalist had ever asked Mr Whittamore to use illegal methods to obtain information.

2 days asking general questions of Dacre (apart from very brief questioning re one DL article), and 5 hours asking general questions of Liz Hartley, doesn't feel like good use of witness time, especially when you have a judge asking you if the questions are relevant.

The people there chose to be there.

But, he is not well.

I don't think they did @Rhaidimiddim

How he can find it in himself to align and compare his courtroom attendance in a civil case he himself brought, to that of the bereaved parents of kids who took their own life is beyond any logic or level of compassion,

He does appear to be spiraling, I saw a bit of the video with the sound off and the manic hand flapping is actually a bit freakish.

Are these the same parents that Archewell set up The Parents Network for and then dumped them off to another charity lying that this is Archewells standard process to ‘incubate’ new charities such as Invictus and Travelyst before setting them free - except that Invictus and Travelyst existed way before Archewell existed. Also ‘restructured’ the finances and legals around a Archewell to benefit them as a family and kicked The Parents Network out.

Are these the same devastated parents that MM sat next to in an interview with Sue Pauly where she was crowing about how amazing her own two living children were?

I don’t think they are , this was on the news but I wasn’t fully paying attention, I believe these parents are grieving the recent death of their children from following an online fad .

This landed last night from SkyNews:

Prince Harry's court case: What's happened so far? | UK News | Sky News

I’ve just read that and the only interesting information I have discovered is the news articles Harry is using!!!
most are about Chelsey but all of them are practically about his love life! 🤔😬

and they all date from when he was partying hard and falling out of nightclubs drunk.

Thanks @CraftyGin

Archive link https://archive.is/VRLc5

It's a fairly bland summary, mostly simply repeating the allegations for each case.
Interesting that they have included details about the early emails for SH, but not for SF.

And as a tax payer funded member of the royal family then, it was in the public interest. He has never been shy to disclose personal information in his book, interviews and with his friends. Who can forget the 'she is African but dont worry she isn't black' comment about Chelsy! She dumped him because he was a twat, he didn't need any help from the press.

The sky news article says:
The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation.
Have I missed this in the evidence reporting, I don't remember anything about bank accounts and finances being said or evidence provided. I am struggling to keep on top of it.

Her decision confuses me too, but why would it be hoped that she alone would have her costs paid?

After all she too has agency ...

One of Harry's articles he is complaining about is about his mum, let her rest in peace. That's rich as he is hawking the idea for him to do a documentary on his mum, who he has few memories of (his words)

That's one of the things that the claimants are alleging, @binkie163. It's effectively the definition of blagging - obtaining personal (in this case financial) information by deception.

They haven't yet shown direct evidence of that being done.