So here we have it "We All Poop".
In a rare moment, almost, of self awareness Meghan says in her latest Witness Statement (WS) "..It's not me thats on trial here.." But it is Megsy-Sue you are so wrong.
Not only on trial but you have already lost - even if, as is possible, you succeed on the narrow point of your privacy being breached. So what? You get maybe at best 60-70% of your costs back. The Damages will be small. They are in cases like this; and anyway you have chosen to ride the Tiger of publicity as the Judgment makes clear. You are no babe in the woods. You deserve scant (one of Warby's favourite words) sympathy.
The Mail has nothing to lose, even if it loses. The Costs and damages will be a small fraction of the increased revenue generated so far let alone the millions generated as an eager public watch the ongoing shaming and humiliation of people they have come to despise. The Mail has no reputation to lose. The Nations and, to an extent now, the worlds secret dirty pleasure. A mix of salacious gossip and Presbyterean outrage larded with Tits, Ass and Hunks. "By office boys for office boys" sniffed Lord Salisbury two centuries ago, an institution then, like the Royal Family.
Warby is scathing, in his restrained manner, about Meghan, as he was in his previous Judgment:
"The other Statement was from the Claimant herself. It was short, containing little that was factual - or certainly little that needed to be proved, by the Claimant or anyone else."
"The defendant suggests that the claimants side briefed the press in relation to this application, and the evidence bears this out.......Indeed there is evidence to support the defendants assertion that the claimants side have been energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the beginning"
He fingers ("Wetwipe now!") "someone called Omid Scobie". Come off it Yeronner! Next you'll be saying "The Beatles what are they? Some popular music combination?" . As a clear mouthpiece, direct to the Duchess, which will of course become highly significant. He is in for a lifetime of pain Lady C's "Scabies". As this cases other obvious and disposable hate figure.
He also teases the Mails famous, in my little world, and formidable solicitor Keith Mathieson. Wondering aloud if he waited up till midnight to send the Response (improperly) to the Mail so they could publish it. Sniffily dismissing his evidence; but significantly not as he did with Sherbourne at the previous hearing taking him and White (the Mails barrister whom he clearly respects) to the woodshed. He knows and we all know they are acting for a bunch of shits. They arent pretending to be saving the world.
Indeed he helpfully explains how their arguments might be improved.
He does all this because he knows the anonymity of the FFF is unsustainable legally and practically. What he does is to take the Claimants evidence when unapposed at face value. He humanely shields the FFF, for the time being, so that there can be no excuse for them not making witness statements about what really happened. He makes it perfectly clear that come trial this protection will almost certainly "evaporate".
So what is the story? We now have evidence from two of the five. Directly from B and indirectly in a lawyers WS from "one other".
B says she and the other 4 in communication decided they were so worried about the evil Britishers assault on the peoples Duchess that B was tasked with doing something. She contacted Jess Cagle (so many names in this matter sound like slang for something below the waist) editor of People. Jess "set up" for all 5 to speak to People "..on the basis their identities would not be revealed, they would not have done so otherwise" (important). "The claimant played no part in arranging the interviews, was not aware they were being planned, and did not become aware of the article until after it was published". This is what Meghan must prove to succeed against the Mails defence that she condoned or acquiesced in or solicited (words to that effect) the article.
The Mail argue that in fact Friend B has regularly leaked material about Meghan to the press to thier mutual benefit and in one of the drier assides in the Judgment Warby says:
"Over 45 paragraphs Friend B addresses one by one each press cutting explaining the context and role she played in relation to each. The gist of her evidence is that it is misleading and untrue to suggest that this material undermines what she said in her first statement."
He does not say he believes her, merely that her evidence is uncontested in this regard.
Helpfully Warby hints that both the promise of anonymity and the ignorance of Meghan could subsequently be challenged - and all would change.
The "one other" friend in evidence given via Meghans lawyers discloses that she fear she would "..(with reason) suffer intrusion and distress if the order sought is not made."! "with reason"! Now, this is something of a bombshell. Why you might ask? What is her evidence or her circumstances? Is this the "unsatisfactory witness"? Hmmmmmm!
I wont go on. The battle lines are drawn. For the FFF doom approaches. Their evidence (and Thomas's see below) is at the heart of the case. If it carries on they will have to give WS endorsed with Statements of Truth about what happened and they will be dragged over to London in January when the anonymity will "evaporate" and what happened to Amber and Johnny will happen to them. They will pay a price in "splash and spreads" for their misguided friendship with another b-lister who didnt scruple to advertise a product that literally meant your tit dont stink.
And Thomas. The other key witness.
I look at those ill advised photos of this elderly man, chumpishly posing as he was clearly advised to. They are endearing not sinister. He appears to be what he is. A "rube" who made his living in the physically demanding and unglamorous world behind the tinsel; and against the odds won the lottery and spent his money on the daughter he adored. A striking girl who got in front of the lighting rigs he worked on, and despite having no proper talent, made something of herself and could have been something truly remarkable, but instead became Meghan Markle. Those harsh phonemes that will be forever associated with deceit, treachery, betrayal, abusive relationships and public shaming.
It is a tragedy worthy of Sophocles. Character is fate and the narrative arc ends with Justice.
Aunty needs a walk.
I almost feel sorry for him
but yeah.
Looking at you snarkles and wondering if all this foundation/company name juggling going on with Sussex Royal/ MWX/liquidation etc is because the Trudeau situation within your clique has scared you into covering up your earning plans with as much confusion as possible.
Wishing The Duchess of Sussex a very happy birthday!” the royal family’s official Instagram account wrote alongside a photo of the queen and Suits alum in 2018.