 |
|

07-06-2020, 03:11 PM
|
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 901
|
|
Well it wouldn't be surprising if he did since he's the one who gave/sold the later to the MoS in the first place, co operated with other papers/GMB and has seemingly taken every opportunity to oppose his daughter since the wedding fiasco and "tell his side of the story".
__________________
|

07-06-2020, 03:14 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,339
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi
I'm taking this with enough salt to turn a freshwater lake into a briny pond but from a quick research, it seems Cosmopolitan is usually reliable with reliable sources but don't quote me on that because I've never actually read the magazine.
Anyways... according to this article, Thomas Markle will be testifying in the court case. On the side of the defendant against his own daughter.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/enterta...ocialflowFBCOS
|
So the article you linked talks about the Channel 5 program he cooperated on back in January 2020.
This is the link directly to Cosmo's own article, which actually sites US Weekly ,about TM's supposed testifying:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/enterta...-meghan-court/
Both Cosmo and US Weekly articles were written just days after the exit announcement, and site nothing more than each other as sources.
__________________
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
|

07-06-2020, 03:20 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,636
|
|
Thanks. Obviously I didn't check the dates on the links.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
|

07-09-2020, 07:35 AM
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
|
|
Well they were named in the confidential section of the hearing. That was done for a reason. I don't see how they can threaten that at all. That is kind of witness intimidation. Shall be interesting to see how it all plays out.
|

07-09-2020, 08:28 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,073
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katymcwaity
|
All this litigation must be costing a lot. Hope Harry has some of his capital left at the end of this process.
|

07-09-2020, 08:42 AM
|
Commoner
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: xx, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
|
|
Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?
|

07-09-2020, 08:53 AM
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by phss
Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?
|
All 5 women really have no bearing on this case. It is one friend, "Friend A", who mentioned the letter. Not the others. So trying to say they are the "center of the case" is a bit of a reach. It is about copyright. Not their interview.
If they are not called as witnesses then there is really no reason for the public to know who they are. If any are called then that will be publicly known unless something happens to prevent that. And the MoS trying to reveal them before a trial date has even been set could play a major role in that decision.
|

07-09-2020, 09:34 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,073
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by phss
Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO
All 5 women really have no bearing on this case. It is one friend, "Friend A", who mentioned the letter. Not the others. So trying to say they are the "center of the case" is a bit of a reach. It is about copyright. Not their interview.
If they are not called as witnesses then there is really no reason for the public to know who they are. If any are called then that will be publicly known unless something happens to prevent that. And the MoS trying to reveal them before a trial date has even been set could play a major role in that decision.
|
As the matter is subjudice and none of us really know all the facts of the case, I would advice caution in what is said.
|

07-09-2020, 10:27 AM
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
|
|
Legally I would say there is little change of these women being kept anonymous.
There are no minors or vulnerable people involved. In doubt it will be granted. And even if it was, like in the days of a super injunction where things were only granted to protect minors, it will leak out anyway.
This really makes me think they didn't think through this at all.
The current Johnny Deep trial is a prime example. How many people have been mentioned. But he brought this case for other reasons than libel.
|

07-09-2020, 10:30 AM
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,478
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7
Legally I would say there is little change of these women being kept anonymous.
There are no minors or vulnerable people involved. In doubt it will be granted. And even if it was, like in the days of a super injunction where things were only granted to protect minors, it will leak out anyway.
This really makes me think they didn't think through this at all.
The current Johnny Deep trial is a prime example. How many people have been mentioned. But he brought this case for other reasons than libel.
|
Is there a need for them to be named?
|

07-09-2020, 10:35 AM
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville
Is there a need for them to be named?
|
If they give evidence then they will be named. As is what happens when the court case does not involve minors or vulnerable people. If they dont, then probably there is no need to say anything.
This isn't a privacy concern. it is judicial and legal and as a result of the need for justice to be seen to be done, transcripts are public documents. Unless sealed by the courts. Which can happen particularly when minors are involved.
And I would reject Meghans call to sensitivity. Don't start the court case then.
|

07-09-2020, 10:42 AM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: City of Light, France
Posts: 251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katymcwaity
|
Everyone has already to a great extent figured out who they are. Cringeworthy move by Meghan's team. MOS may just have them on the ropes in this legal battle.
|

07-09-2020, 10:51 AM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,361
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath
Well I'm sure that will do wonders for the relationship with his daughter en her family. If there was any hope of reconciliation he can kiss that goodbye.
|
I think he is well aware that the relationship is over in the same way that so many people who have been close to Meghan have discovered (Jessica Mulrooney being the latest) ie when Meghan drops you it is always for good.
|

07-09-2020, 10:55 AM
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyGlendower
Everyone has already to a great extent figured out who they are. Cringeworthy move by Meghan's team. MOS may just have them on the ropes in this legal battle.
|
They don't care. There will be little winnings in this. Libels dont bring in cash anymore. The reason to take them needs to be about something else.
When newspapers get caught out, pictures that were blatant breaches of privacy or comments in articles. They settle out of court and publish apologies. Says a lot that they refused to in this instance.
There is little point in using for libel if it isn't to stop repeat behaviour in the future. Such as intrucive picture.
The MOS are having a great time. And they are also currently being sued by Depp. At least I think it's the same parent company.
|

07-09-2020, 10:58 AM
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath
Well I'm sure that will do wonders for the relationship with his daughter en her family. If there was any hope of reconciliation he can kiss that goodbye.
|
What about her? He never mentioned the letter till her friends mentioned it.
She is bringing the court case and if he gives evidence, he will be subpoenaed anyway. This is all on her.
|

07-09-2020, 11:00 AM
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 255
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7
If they give evidence then they will be named. As is what happens when the court case does not involve minors or vulnerable people. If they dont, then probably there is no need to say anything.
This isn't a privacy concern. it is judicial and legal and as a result of the need for justice to be seen to be done, transcripts are public documents. Unless sealed by the courts. Which can happen particularly when minors are involved.
And I would reject Meghans call to sensitivity. Don't start the court case then.
|
I think the fact we dont see more of this kind of action from Royals etc is that it gets very messy and it probably reflects how upset Meghan is that she is running the gauntlet. The MoS will delighted about the stories that the whole thing generates.
|

07-09-2020, 11:01 AM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 399
|
|
"These five women are not on trial, and nor am I."
It seems that Meghan wants to change the way media reporting around trials works in general. Surely many would agree with her, myself among them. It is often trial by media for anyone and everyone involved (or not) in the case. Witnesses, family members on both sides, friends of those involved, colleagues-- all people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand are dragged under the microscope and can suffer terrible effects. Most importantly, this very often happens to the victim.
Unfortunately, "I'm not on trial here" is not a legal argument, nor is Meghan any different from anyone else who finds themselves at the center of a public trial undergoing scrutiny. She will and should get no special protection. This harkens back to "I thought it would be fair" and screams "Give me special treatment."
It is terrible that people considering whether to pursue legal action have to consider what effect it will have on the people involved. But a legal filing that basically says, "I shouldn't have to put up with this" is petulant.
|

07-09-2020, 11:02 AM
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,478
|
|
I dont blame Meghan for fallng out with her father... but it is probalby "for good" and there wotn be any reconcilation.
|

07-09-2020, 11:10 AM
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams
"These five women are not on trial, and nor am I."
It seems that Meghan wants to change the way media reporting around trials works in general. Surely many would agree with her, myself among them. It is often trial by media for anyone and everyone involved (or not) in the case. Witnesses, family members on both sides, friends of those involved, colleagues-- all people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand are dragged under the microscope and can suffer terrible effects. Most importantly, this very often happens to the victim.
Unfortunately, "I'm not on trial here" is not a legal argument, nor is Meghan any different from anyone else who finds themselves at the center of a public trial undergoing scrutiny. She will and should get no special protection. This harkens back to "I thought it would be fair" and screams "Give me special treatment."
It is terrible that people considering whether to pursue legal action have to consider what effect it will have on the people involved. But a legal filing that basically says, "I shouldn't have to put up with this" is petulant.
|
Yes it's appalling, but I save my empathy for women who bring rape trials and have to undergo the most horrendous cross examination. Or for families of murder victims who must sit through them. She brought this case presumably because she thought they would settle. She should have known better.
And unfortunately she is on trial because to win this outright the newspaper have to to make it a reasonable assumption that she intended that letter to be public.
__________________
|
 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|