British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Lounge (https://britishexpats.com/forum/lounge-7/)
-   -   The Wagatha Christie case (https://britishexpats.com/forum/lounge-7/wagatha-christie-case-943759/)

BristolUK Apr 29th 2022 4:32 pm

The Wagatha Christie case
 
I can't be the only one who has been following this. It's a great laugh.

Background.

And the latest - Rebekah Vardy has suggested agent may have leaked Coleen Rooney stories to Sun, court hears

It's like Watergate.

Rooney’s legal team have struggled to obtain some potentially crucial messages from Vardy and Watt, after a series of incidents that have affected the duo’s electronic devices...Watt accidentally dropped her mobile phone in the North Sea shortly after Rooney’s lawyers requested to search it for messages...Vardy employed an IT expert to back up her WhatsApp messages but the expert lost the password, and a laptop used by Vardy during the period in question has stopped working.

Rooney’s lawyers also say electronic records suggest there was manual deletion of some WhatsApp messages sent between Vardy and Watt.
After the case, "Bridge for sale"





spouse of scouse Apr 29th 2022 4:43 pm

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 
:lol:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...19112b4948.jpg

BristolUK May 7th 2022 10:53 am

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 
So the big case starts next week.

What I hadn't really taken on board was a previous ruling. When Coleen made the original accusation she apparently said “It’s……… Rebekah Vardy’s account.” and a judge ruled that the ordinary person reading this would conclude its meaning was to identify Rebekah as the one responsible.

I must admit that is the way I had taken it, but my actual memory when the news first broke was "It's Rebeka Vardy" and not the account part.
Possibly this may be because it was reported that way. For example, a BBC report has the sub-heading of exactly that.

Newsweek on the other hand carries a report that "It's .........Rebekah Vardy's Account" had become an internet meme.

It seems a rather tough ruling to have made. I mean we all know that accounts can be hacked so to describe the source of the leaks as an account seems to allow for that possibility or even that someone else used the account. However, I didn't read the other stuff and maybe there was something more leading to that ruling.

It's almost like HIGNFY panellists adding the word "allegedly" didn't really absolve them from things they said. :blink:

Anyway, the upshot apparently is that Coleen has to now prove Rebekah was personally responsible, which is going to be difficult due to the events in the quote in the OP which 'an expert' describes as “Destroying evidence deliberately is a very serious matter. But there’s no suggestion that that happened. It does seem there was an unfortunate series of events which has meant this case can’t be properly proved.”

Presumably there's no suggestion that the "unfortunate series of events" was deliberate because that would be libellous, however ludicrous the unfortunate series of events may sound. I suppose a dog may have eaten someone's homework once.

So, to next week...


Jolly Good May 7th 2022 1:41 pm

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13112895)
So the big case starts next week.

What I hadn't really taken on board was a previous ruling. When Coleen made the original accusation she apparently said “It’s……… Rebekah Vardy’s account.” and a judge ruled that the ordinary person reading this would conclude its meaning was to identify Rebekah as the one responsible.

I must admit that is the way I had taken it, but my actual memory when the news first broke was "It's Rebeka Vardy" and not the account part.
Possibly this may be because it was reported that way. For example, a BBC report has the sub-heading of exactly that.

Newsweek on the other hand carries a report that "It's .........Rebekah Vardy's Account" had become an internet meme.

It seems a rather tough ruling to have made. I mean we all know that accounts can be hacked so to describe the source of the leaks as an account seems to allow for that possibility or even that someone else used the account. However, I didn't read the other stuff and maybe there was something more leading to that ruling.

It's almost like HIGNFY panellists adding the word "allegedly" didn't really absolve them from things they said. :blink:

Anyway, the upshot apparently is that Coleen has to now prove Rebekah was personally responsible, which is going to be difficult due to the events in the quote in the OP which 'an expert' describes as “Destroying evidence deliberately is a very serious matter. But there’s no suggestion that that happened. It does seem there was an unfortunate series of events which has meant this case can’t be properly proved.”

Presumably there's no suggestion that the "unfortunate series of events" was deliberate because that would be libellous, however ludicrous the unfortunate series of events may sound. I suppose a dog may have eaten someone's homework once.

So, to next week...

But can they compete with the Depp v Heard case??:lol:

philat98 May 7th 2022 6:03 pm

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 
£3million wasted on legal fees by these idiots. I can see the judge awarding one of these women damages of £1.

BristolUK May 7th 2022 9:48 pm

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 

Originally Posted by Jolly Good (Post 13112937)
But can they compete with the Depp v Heard case??:lol:

From my perspective I've been following Wagatha but not read a word beyond a headline for the other two.

I was tempted when I saw something about her pooping in the bed :ohmy: but I resisted. :nod:

Jolly Good May 7th 2022 10:47 pm

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13113019)
From my perspective I've been following Wagatha but not read a word beyond a headline for the other two.

I was tempted when I saw something about her pooping in the bed :ohmy: but I resisted. :nod:

:lol:

I follow it on FB for the memes :lol:

BristolUK May 10th 2022 10:03 am

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 
And so it begins. Day one of an expected 6 days.

Aren't you on the edge of your seats? :lol:

BristolUK May 11th 2022 10:30 am

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 
From the first day

David Sherborne, acting for Coleen Rooney, asked Vardy whether she was the sort of person who leaked stories to the media. After Vardy said she was not, the lawyer began reading out excerpts from a 2004 interview Vardy once gave to the News of the World about a one-night stand she supposedly had with singer and entertainer Peter Andre.

Sherborne quoted Vardy’s words from the interview: “Peter’s hung like a small chipolata … the smallest trouser equipment I’ve ever seen.”
Not much else from the opening day other than Rooney's side accepting they don't have a smoking gun.

BristolUK May 11th 2022 3:29 pm

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 
Day two:

Rebekah Vardy has confirmed she attempted to leak a story about the arrest of a drink-driving Premier League footballer to a journalist at the Sun – but insisted it was a one-off....she sent the information to her agent Caroline Watt, along with a WhatsApp message that said: “I want paying for this x.”When told the Sun had already got the story about the arrest from a source at the police station, Vardy said she was “fuming I didn’t give it to you earlier”.
A 'one-off' following the kiss and tell mentioned earlier and leaking the information to the agent about a different footballer, and something about an unnamed female celeb. So that's, what, four one-offs.

Had this been a jury trial I suspect they may have their verdict by now. :nod:

philat98 May 11th 2022 6:34 pm

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 
I wonder what Vardy is hoping to get out of the trial? Riches or celebrity? Certainly a nasty bitch.

Jolly Good May 11th 2022 11:17 pm

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 

Originally Posted by philat98 (Post 13114055)
I wonder what Vardy is hoping to get out of the trial? Riches or celebrity? Certainly a nasty bitch.

I wonder how her husband feels about it all?

BristolUK May 12th 2022 1:55 am

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 

Originally Posted by Jolly Good (Post 13114124)
I wonder how her husband feels about it all?

The source of that leak might be too obvious. :ohmy:

Jolly Good May 12th 2022 2:00 am

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13114144)
The source of that leak might be too obvious. :ohmy:

:lol:

dougal03 May 12th 2022 1:48 pm

Re: The Wagatha Christie case
 
"Little" Peter Andre has got a mention.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:24 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.