PERJURY? Flirty Texts Rock Prince Harry’s Case | Harry vs The Press: Evidence That Could Sink Him

Busy routines can make it hard to focus on your health goals, but MedExpress offers a simple way to explore weight management treatment online. Complete our short eligibility consultation with no need for face-to-face appointments or travel. If eligible, treatment is delivered discreetly, with UK-registered clinicians offering support along the way. Visit medexpress.co.uk slash podcast to get started today. Harry will not lose much if he loses the case in financial terms. OK, reputationally, he'll be broken, it seems to me, if the judge effectively says I didn't believe him. He'll be broken. Will he not? All over the world. Hi, welcome to Kinsey Schofield Unfiltered. Joining us today is Jonathan Goldberg Casey, one of the UK's most highly regarded criminal defense lawyers. He's defended over 100 cases and well, murder cases. That's pretty intense. And worked with numerous high profile clients over the years. Jonathan, welcome. I know the audience is familiar with you and happy to hear your reaction to the current developments, because one of the last times we spoke about Prince Harry and this case against the Daily Mail, you said, wait, wait, wait. There could be some tangible evidence on the horizon, you know, that might prove for Prince Harry or against him. So, of course, you're the first person I thought about when I saw these text messages presented in court. Can I ask you, before we get into the specifics about the text messages, where are we right now? Are we waiting for the judge's determination? Has the judge seen absolutely everything he will see? Yes, all the evidence has closed, all the speeches of counsel. And this happened just before Easter. And the judge said this is going to be a really big job for him. And it's going to take him weeks or months to write this long judgment that I think we can confidently expect. and he says he's going to work on nothing else once he's finished his Easter holiday, which is presumably now or yesterday. It's a big job. He's a no-nonsense, very experienced judge. He's interestingly enough, for your American viewers, the judge who heard in England the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case. And of course, you'll recall the very strange situation whereby the judge heard all the evidence sitting alone without a jury, because in England we do not have juries in civil cases by and large and haven't had since, I think, the 1930s. And the judge heard the case of Amber Depp and Amber Depp, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, and he found resoundingly for Amber Heard and gave a long detailed judgment setting out just why he found for Ambird. And frankly, if you've read it, as I have, you find grave difficulty when you then learn that not long afterwards, a civil jury in America found completely the opposite. They found for Johnny Depp against Ambird, which is where matters stand at the moment. And he was entirely rehabilitated. But if you read the judgment in England, you're going to wonder why. Wait, so when you read the judge, you did believe the judge when you read the breakdown of the Johnny Depp Amber Heard. You kind of sided with him on his UK judgment. I'll tell you why. You see, juries basically don't have to give any reasons at all. They sit there for days or weeks or months and hear all the evidence. And at the end of it, they either say guilty or not guilty in a criminal case or in a civil case. They say we find for the claimant or the defendant and we award, I don't know, two million dollars damages, whatever it might be. And that's all they say. They give no reasons. But a judge sitting alone and hearing all the evidence and writing a judgment, as this judge is going to have to do in Harry's case, He has to give the most intricate, full, detailed, convincing reasons why he has accepted each piece of evidence or rejected each piece of evidence. So, you know, it's like reading a book or a Shakespeare play. You know exactly where you're going because you have a route map and you have his detailed reasons. Well, you know, they were pretty persuasive, I found, in this particular case of Heard and Depp. that's wild because as as you know americans it completely shook our culture for a while and they really loathed amber heard when all was said and done with johnny depp i think for the most part is back to work as much as he wants to be and she has struggled to get back on her feet when it comes to being a working actress because the there's really no appetite for her in the united States. So should that worry the audience that doesn't want Harry to win this one? Or do you think that you can even compare the two? Well, I'm going to say firstly that I think he's a completely straight judge. He's been a judge since his 40s. He's handled a large number, when I say 40s, I mean since he was in his early 40s. He's been a judge since 2017. and people who know him and I've spoken to people who know him well, other lawyers, they say he's not the most likable guy personally, but that's not the point, is it? The point is, is he a good judge and does he listen to the evidence and come to sensible conclusions? And there's a general view that, yes, he does. And yes, he is. So, you know, he doesn't take any nonsense. He isn't biased for either side. he's going to give you a straight down the middle reason judgment, I think. And it's very hard to call which way it will go, because over the 10 weeks of evidence, and we're coming to sort of the, you know, what may be a mortal blow to Harry, may or may not be, we're coming to that, which is these very suggestive emails with Charlotte Griffiths. But there's been so much, you know, backwards and forwards, some points for this side, and then points for that side, It's much too close to call, in my view. This is like a world championship, maybe, let's say, a Wimbledon tennis singles finals between two great men players, let's imagine. And, you know, it keeps going one way and then another way and your heart's in your mouth until the final result. And I think that's exactly what's going to happen here. Let's break down what you were just referencing in April of this year. Flirty text messages between Prince Harry and journalist Charlotte Griffiths from 2011 and 2012 were disclosed in London's high court as part of his privacy trial against Associated Newspapers Limited. The exchanges, primarily via Facebook and texts, occurred while Harry was in his late 20s, but before his relationship to Meghan Markle, which I have had somebody reach out and say, oh, my gosh, is this during Meghan? No, it's not during Meghan Markle. There's no reason to to assume that Meghan is angry because it happened during their relationship. But she might be angry that he continues to embarrass her publicly through the pursuit of litigation. Key details revealed in court included affectionate nicknames. Harry reportedly called Griffith Sugar and Griff while she referred to him as Mr. Mischief and H-Bomb. playful content the messages contained references to movie snuggles a weekend of naughtiness and harry joking about drinking griffiths under the table and harry frequently signed off with and strings of kisses xxx now this was contradicted in court the messages were presented by the defense to challenge harry's previous testimony that he was not friends with any of these journalists and had only met Griffiths once before cutting off contact. They talk about multiple weekends, multiple instances where they seem to be present together. They have lots of friends in common. One of the defense's arguments is they weren't hacking phones because a lot of these journalists shared mutual friends with Harry, and Harry denied that. He said there's no way. I think in some of these messages, it reveals that there are, in fact, some mutual friends, whoever Arthur is. So what was your initial reaction to these messages? Were you thinking this isn't a great look for Prince Harry? Yes, I wouldn't call it a mortal blow to his case, but I would call it a very heavy blow against his case. and I'm sure it's going to occupy quite a lot of the written judgment once we get it. Because as you say, Kinsey, the central issue to which this goes, and it's a very important issue in the case, is that you've got Harry saying the only way that the journalists could have got this material to have written the 14 odd articles that I'm complaining about in the late 90s and early 2000s. The only way can have been by illegal bugging of my phone, picking up my voice messages, hacking my private information, putting private detectives unlawfully to spy on me, all this sort of thing. And he's saying it couldn't have been any other way. He's not able to point to any specific instances. There are no smoking guns where he can prove that definitely this particular article must have come from an illegal source because it couldn't have come from a genuine journalistic source. Now, that's the battle lines, if you like, on both sides, whereas the defendants, the newspaper group, are saying nonsense. All these articles came from the normal run of journalistic sources. They were written by good journalists who checked their sources, both open and secret contacts and informants they have, as journalists invariably do, and no skullduggery was involved. So those are the battle lines. And the problem is that Harry through his counsel David Sherbourne is having to say to the judge again and again well it must have been it must have been it couldn have been anything else But the judge in one interesting exchange towards the very end of the case and I think this might prove very significant when we read the final judgment the judge said Mr Sherborne it sounding to me as though you reversing or you perilously close he said to reversing the burden of proof Now, what does he mean by that? Well, the person who brings the case, in other words, Harry and the other six claimants, which let's not forget there are seven of them. Harry's by and away, far and away, the most important and newsworthy one. But there are six others, including Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost and the rest of it. Now, he who brings the allegation has to prove it, be it in an American court before a jury or an English court before a civil judge. He who brings it has to prove it. He doesn't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, as you do in a criminal charge. in a criminal charge, murder, burglary, rape, whatever it might be, the prosecution have to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt so that you're absolutely sure of it. But in a civil case, it's a much less high hurdle. The claimant only needs to show that on the balance of probabilities, it's more likely than not that the journalist had to have got this information from illegal sources. So when you've got Harry saying it must have been, and when you've got the journalists saying it wasn't, it was from leaky people in his own circle, and his servants, and his rogue publicists, and all sorts of people who for one reason or another were gossiping about him behind his back, as we can well believe people do and did about the royal family. I just think of Prince Andrew, he can show you the truth of that, can't he? So when you've got a single situation, as these latest flirty emails reveal with Charlotte Griffiths, a journalist, where he seems to be on very intimate terms with her, where she is in his social circle. And by the way, she is, you know, in the Notting Hill set. She's a posh girl. She was born to a posh family. She's got a very plummy voice. And she's obviously, or was at the time, you know, a member of his partying set. And so she was also a journalist. So one imagines she was picking up all sorts of tidbits about him from his friend and she and she was keeping her ears open, one imagines. And I don't know what what you say when you read this stuff, as I have, because you're you're exactly the right sort of age as as they are now. So I'm sort of looking at this from an older age group. But when I read it, it does look to me as though, you know, they were having a little fling, these two. It looks to me as though, you know, there was probably a bit of bed hopping in Country House Weekend. And, you know, she's a good looking girl. She may well have fancied her chances of netting a prince. Why not? Not so good looking girl called Fergie managed it after all. Well, I mean, I know I wouldn't refer to myself as CG string if I wasn't trying to flirt with someone. I feel like I would limit that nickname to people I had affection for. Quite. And what were the movie snuggles if not that they were watching a movie either in bed or on the sofa or whatever it might be? That's the way it reads to me. So I'm assuming as I read this that they had an intimate friendship of some kind and of some degree. I get the impression again it's an old man speaking but I get the impression that she was keener on this than he was that she wanted it to continue and he sort of in a gentlemanly way was letting it drop which men sometimes do let's face it you know having achieved their wicked way they go on they go on to the next one and he was just 27 at the time so that's my my take on it but the importance in this case is that he's saying, I never knew her. Well, maybe I met her once. I can't remember. She was nothing. And I didn't know she was a journalist, even though they're talking about her work at one point, unspecified what the work is. But isn't the first thing you ask anyone, you know, what work do you do? This is what I do. You know, he's going on about he's a combat helicopter trainee at the time as he was. So he says he didn't know she was a journalist. If he had known he'd have cut it completely. You see, he has to say that, doesn't he? In order to support his case, they could only have got it from illegal sources. Well, once you have this big dent in his armor, and once if the judge does, if the judge says, well, I'm sorry, but having heard both sides on this and read the emails, I don't accept Harry's evidence. If the judge says, I don't accept Harry's evidence, as a witness of truth, my God, then that's going to ring around the world, isn't it? And if you find a sort of a person is lying on one thing, you're immediately very suspicious about accepting their evidence on anything else. That's just normal, isn't it? If you have a high regard for somebody, as for example, I do for you, and then God forbid, I discover you've told me a lie on oath. You know, I start to doubt everything else that you've told me. Inevitably, we're all like that as human beings. And the judge could be like that. So that's why this really could be, could be a very important moment in the case. What do you react or what's your reaction to people that have accused Harry of perjury? Is that even an option here? And could it, could he just have, you know, the guy talks openly in fair about how much he loves marijuana. Could he literally just have forgotten because his brain is so baked? Well, of course, it's possible, isn't it? I'm told that this term H-bomb is probably a hidden reference to taking drugs, actually. Oh, wow. I wish I was hipper so I could confirm or deny, but I really don't know. Well, I learned this as well by reading articles about it. And it looks as though to the younger generation, it has a connotation. But let's even leave that aside. You know, perjury is, people talk very glibly, oh, he's a perjurer, and won't he be done for perjury and, you know, it doesn't happen. In a real world, it's the hardest thing to prove. The very hardest criminal case to prove is perjury because it requires independent corroboration. It's not good enough that my word against yours, that I say you told a lie, there has to be independent proof of it. You know, we've got to have a tape recording of you doing it or somebody else have still have heard it as well. This kind of thing. So perjury is very, very rarely prosecuted. If there's two or three cases a year, it's a lot. Therefore, nobody's going to prosecute him for perjury, whatever happens. And the way judges do it in England, in civil cases, they never say we find him guilty of perjury. They never say that in their judgments. If they do, I'm afraid I've missed it. I've never read it in all the judgments I've read. But what they say is we find it very difficult to accept his evidence on this issue. And reluctantly, we have had to conclude that his evidence is unreliable on this issue. That's the way. But you read between the lines, he's a perjurer. But that's the nice way they dress it up always. So don't expect the P word to be used in the judgment. But what wouldn't surprise me is if the judge says in a number of respects of which this is most likely to be the main one I would have thought I would have guessed don't be surprised if the judge says I found his evidence unreliable and unconvincing and I am not persuaded by it so that's the highest it will go but anyone who is experienced in reading these kind of things knows that what he means is he's a liar okay now that could happen that could certainly happen. And I would be very worried if I were Harry, because if that happens, good Lord, his credit all over the world is shot for a royal to have that set against him. But these are the risks you take when you bring high profile litigation on what you say are matters of principle. So, you know, this could be a very, a very, a turning point in the case, I think. Now, I have to tell you guys about a complete game changer, Peak's Liver Detox Protocol. You may not know it, but your liver handles a lot. Energy, hormones, digestion, and even your mood. But with all the stress and toxins from everyday life, it needs some love. Forget harsh cleanses, Peak delivers gentle daily support inspired by traditional Chinese medicine. Their routine uses two simple blends. The first is a warming turmeric mix with cinnamon and black pepper designed to help the body absorb it better and support the liver while calming inflammation. The second is a ginger and cinnamon blend that helps with blood flow, digestion, bloating and immune support. The magic is how they work together to activate and flush for better digestion, stable energy, less brain fog and that light, clear feeling. My energy is consistent now. Skin is clear and less bloating. Redefine your standard of health, secure 20% off your order, and begin your intentional wellness journey today at peaklife.com slash Kinsey. That's P-I-Q-U-E life.com slash Kinsey. Ready to launch your business? Get started with the commerce platform made for entrepreneurs. Shopify is specially designed to help you start, run, and grow your business with easy, customizable themes that let you build your brand. Marketing tools that get your products out there. integrated shipping solutions that actually save you time from startups to scale ups online, in person and on the go. Shopify is made for entrepreneurs like you. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at shopify slash setup Tom Bauer writes in his new book Betrayal about how there really nothing for Harry to lose because he goes and gets a certain kind of insurance So if he does manage to lose he not out maybe a significant amount of money Do you know anything about that or could you explain that to me? Yes, with pleasure. So these kind of cases in England, they're a sort of very high priced casino at the end of the day. Think of Las Vegas with gamblers, you know, gambling enormous sums on the turn of a card. It's a bit like that because the costs of a 10 week trial and it will go, you know, by the time you've heard the judgment and applications to appeal and all this kind of thing that will inevitably follow on both sides. Whichever side loses, it's going to go longer than 10 weeks. Now, it costs a fortune. English defamation lawyers are probably the highest paid lawyers in the world. I was discussing the hourly rates of top London firms and top London counsel, and the hourly rates are about double what you would pay in America, which really surprises me, because you normally assume because American damages are always so much higher, you assume that the legal fees will be had. In fact, it's quite the opposite. OK, so it is estimated and sensibly estimated that the costs of this trial are going to come to about 40 million pounds. That's to say all the lawyers costs on both sides, all the witness expenses, all the expert witnesses, the whole caboodle, 40 million pounds. You won't get changed from. Right. So because we have what is called the English rule, which you don't have in America, that is to say the loser pays both sides costs. The winner gets his legal costs from the loser. so even though the damages in this case assuming harry or any of the other seven assuming they win their actual damages that the judge will award if he finds that they were unlawfully spied on if big if it's going to be you know 50 000 pounds 100 000 pounds it certainly won't be more than 150 000 pounds because english damages in these situations are low and there's precedent for it of course. He's not inventing the figure from his head. He's comparing it with other cases where damages have been awarded on a sort of scale. And yet the legal costs, as I said, will be 40 million pounds. So the real big issue is costs at the end of the day. That's where I say it's a casino. Everybody's fighting over the costs. Now, what happens is that the lawyers, because in a case like this, they're internationally famous. The moment the case begins, you know, David Sherbourne, a very bright young man, as I've said to you before, he's now an international celebrity. And this is rather good looking. He's probably done wonders for his private life as well. I wouldn't wonder. But, you know, a fabulous position to be in. He's the most famous lawyer in the world at the moment. OK, so lawyers and chap on the other side, who's much more demure in English, stiff upper lip but you know Anthony White his name is also in lights all over the world so they'll they'll make a fortune in other work that will follow them if they win this so there's tremendous bounty at stake for them personally so they agree to do these cases on a conditional fee agreement invariably and I have reason to believe that's what the situation is here so in other words Harry's solicitors and barristers they all agree that it's no win no fee if Harry wins they get their costs and the other side pay and they're even entitled to enhance costs in certain circumstances but it's the other side who pay but almost certainly the agreement with Harry will be you don't pay and we don't get paid unless we win sometimes you have a bit of a mixture They might say to him, we'll take much reduced rates, but the essence will be, you know, no win, no fee. So they're putting their money where their mouth is. And there's a lot, you know, because there's years of work here. There's years of sleepless nights and working day and night and weekend to prepare a case like this. people don't realize that I always used to say to my interns that for every hour you see me in court, you're not seeing two hours outside court where I've been working and preparing and refining every question I'm asking. All right. So the real game is over the costs, if you like. And it follows that Harry will not lose much if he loses the case in financial terms. OK, reputationally, he'll be broken, it seems to me, if the judge effectively says I didn't believe him, he'll be broken. Will he not? All over the world. Right. So that's his gamble. And the lawyer's gamble is if they don't win, they don't get paid. Well, I mean, it does. He's trying to brand himself as an expert in multiple different fields from online privacy to children on social media. and, you know, to veterans. And it jeopardizes his brand across the board if he loses this case, because it appears to the public in perception in a lot of cases is reality that he was dishonest with the court, which is hard to justify completely. Can I ask you? Can I just intervene, Kinsey, to make this point? Let me ask you a question. Do you feel that's the risks if he loses, the tremendous reputational risk that will ruin his brand? I think we both agree all over the world. But is that risk worth when you balance it against what he'll get if he wins? What will he get if he wins? he gets to say I told you so I you know he says he's slaying dragons and this is his legacy and he's doing it not only for his mother but for his wife although that makes no sense around this case because he had not met Megan yet you know we we talked about it last time him going on the stand almost in tears talking about how the negative press has affected his wife well that's irrelevant to this case. You know, sorry, but it's irrelevant. And it's you who chose to bring it. If you didn't want to upset your wife, then take her on holiday. Right. You know, I spend a lot of time online researching, reading, podcasting, and that's exactly why I started using ExpressVPN. For anyone who spends a lot of time online, privacy and security are increasingly important. That's where ExpressVPN comes in. Internet providers can track browsing activity and sometimes sell that data. and using public Wi-Fi can leave personal information exposed. ExpressVPN helps add a layer of protection by hiding a user's IP address and keeping browsing activity more private. It also encrypts Internet traffic, which can be especially useful when connecting to public networks like those in airports, hotels, or cafes. Another feature is the ability to switch locations across more than 100 countries. This can allow users to access content if they were in another region or potentially find better pricing when browsing online. ExpressVPN is designed to deliver fast speed, simple setup, and the ability to use the service across multiple devices at the same time. The service also includes additional tools such as a password manager and identity protection features along with 24-7 customer support. Plans start at just $3.49 per month. That's a steal. Find out how you can get up to four extra months by scanning the QR code on the screen, clicking the link in the description box below or by going to expressvpn.com slash Kinsey expressvpn.com slash Kinsey. So I think that if he wins it, he gets to say, I told you so. And he gets to look like he's a tough guy. But that's really all I think he gets out of this. Well, if I were advising him, I think and I were giving him honest advice, I'm sure I would say to him, you know, the downside is not worth the upside of winning. Right. Wow. That's interesting. What just to reiterate, you know, you and I had this conversation previously, but I just want to confirm the judge can say, Elton John, I see it here. I see the evidence you've presented, and I agree that people acquired information about you unlawfully. But then he might say, but with you, Prince Harry, unfortunately, your evidence has fallen through and the defense presented some interesting content that's made me realize I don't think the same can be said about you. So Elton John could walk away a winner and Prince Harry could walk away a loser. Totally. Not only that, but the judge has to decide on each individual newspaper article. He has to decide this one was unlawful, that one wasn't. Perhaps they were all unlawful or they all weren't. But he has to do it article by article and give his reasons in detail for each of, in Harry's case, 14. but then the seven defendants um in the case of the others i don't think there are as many as 14 but you might have six or seven in one case eight or nine in in the other and so on going down the list of seven so for every single article he's got to do the same exercise with them does the evidence compel him to the conclusion on the balance of probabilities that it must have been unlawful or might it have been lawfully obtained journalistic material so for each defendant and And each claimant says, sorry, and each article, that careful intellectual exercise with full reasons has to be carried out and will be carried out by this judge. And that's why he's saying it will take me months. I feel very sorry for him. It's a hell of a task. You know, people don't realize what a task it is to write these things and, you know, put it all together and pick the evidence and pick the nuggets and the cherries and, you know, make it all make it all read well. I've had to do it myself. And when I said as a part time judge in much simpler cases believe me and it was very difficult even so And of course because you know the whole world is going to be reading it you have to really make a good job of it and make it, you know, make it read well and polish it and write it and write it again and rewrite it. That's the way this exercise works, which is why the judge says it'll take me months, even though I'm going to give up all other work while I'm doing this. So yes, that's what happens. And there's also, don't forget, this technical defence. Now, that could, even though the public and the press have not made much of this because it's technical and you need perhaps to be a lawyer to understand it. So let me explain it very simply. But there is in each of the seven cases and certainly in Harry's case as well, the technical defence that the newspaper group are running. and it's called limitations. You have six years in which to bring an action. And all these actions were brought far later than the six years. I mean, as I said to you, the articles of which Harry is complaining are from the 90s and the early 2000s. So, you know, sometimes 20 years ago, never mind six. And you've got to bring your action, issue your writ within six years, normally speaking, or you can't do it. It's time barred. There's an exception. The exception is if you don't discover that you had the grounds for an action until six years have gone. You know, sometimes let's give a simple example in the medical field. Sometimes let's imagine that the builder has built your house using asbestos and 10 years later, you discover you've got asbestosis, which is cancer of the lungs, simply put. They're not going to say to you, well, you weren't within the six years of building the house. You only discovered it after 10. And so the time runs, the six years run from when you discover it, having, you know, taken reasonable steps to discover it earlier if you could have done. You can't just, you know, do nothing. You've got to act reasonably. Now, the issue here is, did Harry and did the others have reason to know that they had an action against the newspapers much earlier than when they brought this case, which was actually in 2022? Could they have known within the six years? The newspaper says yes, and points to all sorts of pieces of evidence why it's yes. Harry and the others say no, they didn't know they had an action. well, that's going to be a very interesting defense. And I think it may work for at least some of the seven in favor of the newspaper group. We'll have to see. And if it works, it's a complete defense. And the judge doesn't even then need to go into the merits of assuming they'd brought it in time. You know, was it unlawful or not? So it's all very, very interesting. And that technical defense may yet loom very large in this case. and will we have access to the judges um judgment the second harry and his team do or do they have time to comb through it come up with a reaction try a spin if you will they'll they try to megan markle at least tries to spin every failure as a win in some way shape or form or do we all have access to this judgment at the same time the spinning here is going to be this so fast and furious. Oh, my heavens, you're right about that. We're all going to be spinning. I think your Hollywood sign behind you will be spinning off its nails. I really do. There's going to be so much spin at every aspect of this judgment, without doubt. The whole thing is almost a cabaret for the world's press. Now, the answer to your question, that the lawyers on conditions of total secrecy and god help them if they if they blurt this there's been cases where lawyers did blurt it and they were struck off they get it usually a day before and they're asked to correct any glaring factual errors that the judge may have made or any typos which often are still there and you know they have time to to sort of correct these things in writing not correct the essence of the judgment you can't say i'm going to correct that you've found for harry and not for the newspaper or vice versa but you know errors errors they're given a chance to correct and then the the actual judgment is is released to the to the world the next day sometimes the lawyers get the final judgment an hour earlier than the world gets it but and again on terms that they mustn't reveal it to anybody in that hour but essentially they can reveal it to their clients only by the way they're not even supposed to tell their clients the day before they promise not to tell their clients the lawyers are asked to correct any errors but without telling their clients and god help them if they do and if it's discovered you know that they have done is it always terrifies me when i get these judgments oh my god what if a client misinterprets my smile you know you know you could be in such trouble accidentally so i'm always dead frightened at this situation personally i'm sure i'm not alone amongst my colleagues but essentially the The moment that it's released to the world, an hour later, the next day, it goes online. So then we can all read it. But I'm afraid that it's going to, you know, take hours to read and digest it. Plus, the press will go to the final line you won or you didn't win, you know. Yeah. And I'm sure they'll search for the name Harry, Prince Harry, and see maybe highlights that way, too. well is there anything else that stood out to you as you as you monitored coverage of this before we wrap up any anything any bombshell moments in the courtroom because you're right once Prince Harry went back home there was a real lack of interest in everything going on inside the courtroom yes and of course the cases of the other six were very interesting as well I did follow them to some extent. And I think two of them don't have any case at all. Famous last words, the judge may disagree with me, but Simon Hughes, who was a politician and a member of parliament, and Lady Lawrence, whose son was horribly murdered in a racially motivated murder many years ago. I didn't see how they had much of a case. The actresses, I think, are on fairly shaky ground, because it seems to me so obvious that the journalists could have learned who the father was of Elizabeth Hurley's son in one case and, you know, about Sadie Foss' medical condition in another. It seems to me they could easily have learned from gossiping friends and this sort of thing. So I'm doubtful that they have much of a case. But Elton John seems to have a pretty good case, actually. It wouldn't surprise me if Elton John and David Furnish were the winners here. Everybody else fails. That could that could really could happen. You know, that's interesting because in Bower's new book, Betrayal, Tom Bower talks about how Elton John offers Prince Harry his private jet to come visit. him and Harry is kind of ambushed when he gets there and it's the lawyer you mentioned David Elton John's husband and they're saying this is a no-brainer you should come you should be on board with us to pursue this legal action so that would be interesting if Elton John and his husband are the only ones that walk away a winner knowing how much attention that Harry brought to the case you know, and how much that might have benefited them. The other takeaway I have, which I found very interesting, of course, the newspaper could, the journalists could not only have said we got all our information in the normal way journalists do. And they could theoretically have named their sources. They could have said, I got this story from Kinsey and I got that story from Jonathan. And this one was at a party in Saint-Tropez when Kinsey had too much to drink. And this one was when Jonathan, you know, was trying to prove some point at a party in London, whatever it might be. They didn't. Now, of course, it's the ultimate journalist's ethic. You never reveal your sources, as you as you well know. A journalist who rats on their sources will never get another source. The court did not therefore force them to name names and they declined to do so. Interesting that their employers, the newspaper group who stand to lose so much, didn't force them or lean on them to do so, which is really says something for the integrity of the of the newspaper and of journalists generally, I thought. so that principle obviously still applies we'll all be I think happy to know that journalists never rat on their sources yeah we have we have to keep the secrets when we can when we do you know sometimes we've got to share them mostly in the form of a headline but they're those little details we have to keep under wraps well when you share them you don't name who you got it from Absolutely not, especially in the royal world. Sources say is like I feel like I say sources said sources say at least a thousand times a day. All right. Jonathan Goldberg, Casey, I rest my case with Dean Strang. Congratulations on all of its success. I heard that you're you're very popular with your podcast. So I'm so proud of you. Thank you. And I will see you again very soon. and thank you so much. You're going to come back and talk to us when we finally get that judgment, I'm hoping. Yes, I'm going to have to do a lot of homework to read it, aren't I? We'll talk to you guys again very soon. If you agree with us, disagree with us, let us know in the comments below. Make sure you like, subscribe, and share this video with a friend. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.