[ad_1]
Australian royal commentator, columnist and reporter Angela Mollard appeared on Sunrise to share the latest events surrounding Meghan Markle’s legal case against Associated Newspapers. But while giving the details of what has happened so far, Ms Mollard echoed concerns that Meghan’s credibility had been destroyed by the lawsuit after it was revealed she did brief staff about the Finding Freedom biography and expected her letter to Thomas Markle to be leaked. Ms Mollard concluded by saying the Duchess of Sussex’s ratings were likely low because of the revelations as it goes against what was made public.
Speaking on Sunrise, the panel discussed Meghan’s latest battle with Associated Newspapers and its appeal process.
The presenters remarked a “lot of dirty laundry” was being aired with Ms Mollard invited to give the low-down on events.
She told the programme: “Look, I think that there’s a massive twist.
“I mean, some commentators are saying that this is really the end of Meghan’s credibility.”
Radio presenter Cristo Foufas appeared on Jeremy Vine on 5 and argued the Sussexes are allegedly losing their credibility “day after day”.
He suggested because Meghan forgot about briefing her staff about Finding Freedom, her allegations during the Oprah Winfrey interview must also be questioned.
In the aftermath of the interview, Buckingham Palace released a statement about some of the claims made and said “recollections may vary”.
Ms Mollard continued: “So what’s happened is we know that Mail on Sunday has challenged the court ruling that they breached her privacy.
“There’s new text messages between her and her former Communications Secretary which show two things.
“One that she contributed to the Finding Freedom book and secondly that she asked her Communications Secretary to help her write the letter she wrote to her father which is the basis of this case.”
Ms Mollard added Meghan was concerned the letter would be leaked so edited the language used to “pull at the heartstrings” if made public.
The Australian reporter said it was “very manipulative” to write to her father knowing it may be made public.
Ms Mollard theorised Meghan’s ratings were likely “very low” at the moment and said it was not what the Queen would like to see as she rests due to health issues.
Womens’ Rights activist Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu defended Meghan and said it made “zero difference” to the privacy claim that she won.
Writing in the Independent she said: “The question in the latest faux outrage about Meghan is not whether she loses credibility for not informing the High Court that her former comms secretary, Jason Knauf, provided some information for the unauthorised biography, Finding Freedom, to authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, with her knowledge.
“No, the only question is whether this would have made a difference to the outcome of the privacy claim she won against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Mail on Sunday.
“The fact is it should make zero difference.”
DON’T MISS
Queen health latest: Prince Charles gives fans touching update [INSIGHT]
Meghan and Harry credibility ‘goes day after day’ after forced apology [REPORT]
Meghan and Harry ‘made it about themselves’ on Remembrance Day [INSIGHT]
Associated Newspapers launched an appeal against the High Court’s summary judgement on Meghan Markle’s privacy case against them.
It meant the case did not go to full trial which would have allowed the publishers to get into the nuances of their case.
However, during their appeal process, a former aide to the Sussexes Jason Knauf testified that he was given permission to brief the authors of Finding Freedom.
The Sussexes have repeatedly stated they had nothing to do with the book and have tried to distance themselves from it.
Mr Knauf also showed messages which saw Meghan asking if she should edit her language in a letter written to her father, expecting it to be leaked.
Associated Newspapers claim Meghan wrote the letter accepting the public would read it and therefore had no issue of it being made public.
Meghan apologised to the court following the testimony and claims she forgot about briefing her staff.
[ad_2]
