Harry & Meghan

[Idayatatime]

I'ts wonderful to see Harry & Meghan happy & smiling & back in the UK supporting their charities.

Regardless whether people agree or disagree with their return, like all families we may not always agree,we may even fall out for long periods of time. The important thing is finding it in our hearts to forgive while leaving bitterness in the past. Above all we must consider the unforgiving legacy we may leave behind & the children who can never be happy & fulfilled being brought up within a fueding family.

The judge said she had lied and she had to apologise . However he chose not to issue any punishment. That does not mean that she didn’t lie though, does it?

She wasn’t charged with perjury, but that doesn’t automatically mean she was cleared of misleading the court. The judge wasn’t conducting a criminal trial, and judges don’t bring criminal charges themselves.
What I find telling is that the Court of Appeal described it as, at best, an “unfortunate lapse of memory”. The wording itself leaves you wondering what the ‘at worst ‘ the judge was implying. The judges were deciding a privacy case, not whether she had committed perjury, so it’s disingenuous to imply that because the judge didn’t charge her with perjury that she’s innocent of it.

The bullying allegations against MM have never been proven.

Meghan worked for many years on Suits and no one has complained about her behaviour then?

And why was an ex royal staffer who works for Earthshott being interviewed in Australia? He could hardly claim to be unbiased if he works for Earthshott?

You must admit it was highly unusual, as was the timing of the interview.

No the judge accepted that she had forgotten about the briefing notes and that it was a lapse of memory as opposed to intentional lies.

Jason Knauf had evidence that was relevant to the case, so I don’t see why he should be criticised for providing it. Regardless of the outcome, it gave the court more context and helped establish a clearer picture of what had happened. Surely the most important thing in any court case is getting to the truth, not protecting someone’s reputation. If he had relevant evidence, why shouldn’t he share it? It shouldn’t matter whether it reflects well or badly on Meghan, William or anyone else. The truth matters more than taking sides. And imagine how much worse it could have looked if relevant evidence had been kept quiet and only came to light later. That would surely have raised even more questions. Providing evidence isn’t the same as trying to make someone look bad.

He said ‘at best it was an unfortunate lapse of memory’ , I don’t think that means what you think it does.

How unlucky to have such a bad memory in court. Yet in interviews, many and various, her claims seemed to be based on a good memory.

Sorry but do we know who scrutinised the emails that JK provided? Or were they deemed accurate bc they came from the office of the RF? That is a genuine question btw. I genuinely don’t know the answer.

I absolutely agree that getting to the truth is the most important thing.

You would think that MM had lost the case if you read all the posts here. That is why I am trying to correct that impression.

MM in fact won all three of her high profile cases yet posters here prefer to focus on the one part of one case where she was found to have forgotten evidence, not lied about it. I wonder why that is?

Every court cases weighs up people’s versions of the proof and comes down on one side. Three judges came down on MM’s side on three occasions. That’s all I’m saying.

Again, very simply, I would prefer to rely on the opinion of judges who have studied the cases and looked at the evidence, and look at this objectively, rather than be influenced by BP spin. lines spun by the royal rota, and the DM.

The supposed lies that MM told in court, when the judge accepted that she had forgotten and had not intended to mislead, were repeated all over the press, far more than any of her three court victories. I wonder why that was?

Perhaps because most people think "misleading" in court is such a negative thing.

If it was a simple case of memory lapse, why the vitriol heaped upon Jason Knauf, who simply remembered something poor forgetful Meghan had forgotten?

Reading your posts one would think these cases were about Meghan’s collaboration with Omid Scobie and that main point was for the judge to rule whether she was lying or simply forgot.

I think he is vilified because this was the first time the world was given tangible evidence of what many suspected; that Harry and Meghan are not honest people and that they will lie whenever it suits them, even in court.

Yes, I think that's the issue; so many lies.

Right. In other words judge speak for “I am well aware that you are telling porkies but I will let it go this time”

The vilified Jason Knauf and the ignored Charlotte Griffiths provided rare proof of what many long suspected.

Otherwise they are protected by the good manners of others, the NDAs and the wish of former staff not to have their reputations tainted by sharing their experiences.

Of course. Unfortunately, it's like the boy who cried "wolf". How does anyone believe or trust them? The "lapse of memory" in court did make me laugh though!

Wasn’t this lie also trumpeted out to the world even before the lawsuits?

Oh dear. What a pair!

And yet winning in court three times doesn’t speak to her truthful testimony in the same way?

I see.

You don't see. She might have won legao cases. Fine.
She is also guilty of misleading a court. How strange to have a lapse of memory at an important time like that!

I do see.

I see very little reporting or comment about MM winning all three of her very high profile court cases in favour of focusing on this one memory lapse.

That tells me something about objectivity and bias.

The court cases had nothing to do with Finding Freedom. Winning or losing did not hinge upon her lying or being honest about having collaborated with Scobie.

It was not a “If the glove doesn’t not fit you must acquit moment you are making it out to be.

The case around the letter was wholly duplicitous, though. In America she would have been laughed out of court for leaking her own letter then getting angry when her letter was leaked.

It was a character revealing episode that likely had a profound influence on her global reputation.

This is a funny conversation. People expect honesty. We don’t weigh out how many times someone lied and balance that with how often they are honest. It only takes one exposed lie to know someone is capable of lying.

We wouldn’t tell a woman here who was dating a man that lied to her once that he sounds like marriage material and to go ahead because he only got caught one time.

Yes, that her fans have little objectivity and considerable bias.
She mislead the court.
Perhaps I'll use that technique on my speeding form "yes, I was clocked at 38 in a 30mph zone, but sometimes I've driven under the speed limit. I am therefore innocent"
Look at when I drove according to the law!