Duchess of Sussex’s Denials Contradicted by Evidence from Former Communications Chief

New evidence has emerged in the privacy case involving the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, and Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

The publisher told the Court of Appeal in London that the case had been based on a false premise.

Andrew Caldicott QC, representing ANL, argued that the new evidence from Meghan's former communications chief, Jason Knauf, raises questions about her credibility.

It is alleged that Meghan's denials of cooperating with the authors of the controversial biography, Finding Freedom, have been contradicted by Mr. Knauf's texts.

According to Mr. Caldicott, the letter written by Meghan to her father, Thomas Markle, was not an intimate communication intended solely for his eyes.

He argued that Meghan was aware that her father might disclose it to the media, suggesting that the letter was crafted with public consumption in mind.

ANL also believes that Thomas Markle had the right to reveal the contents of the letter to correct inaccuracies published in People magazine.

ANL's defense further argues that Meghan's claim to privacy should have gone to trial.

Mr. Caldicott stated that Meghan's claim was diminished by her father's right to reply to false allegations made in the People article.

He emphasized that there was a difference between what Mr. Markle said and how he was portrayed in the media.

The barrister concluded that the claimant no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the letter.

Additionally, ANL presented new evidence from Jason Knauf, which contradicts Meghan's previous denials of cooperating with the authors of Finding Freedom.

Mr. Caldicott claimed that Meghan had worked with the book's authors through Mr. Knauf, despite her explicit denial.

Although the book was published after the articles in question, it substantially reproduced Meghan's allegations against her father.

ANL's argument is based on the premise that Meghan's letter and the People article warranted a right of reply, correction, and wider public interest.

The defendant contends that Meghan's case can be shown to be materially false by contemporaneous documents.

Mr. Caldicott questioned Meghan's credibility, asserting that she made no effort to correct the People article, which her father considered to be a serious attack on him.

Meghan's legal team opposes the appeal and maintains that the judge reached the right conclusions based on the evidence presented.

They also object to the introduction of Mr. Knauf's new evidence and suggest that Meghan may present her own new evidence in response.

In other news, discussions have arisen regarding Meghan's Duchess title.

On GB News, journalist Dan Witton expressed confusion about why she still retains the title without the associated responsibilities.

Journalist Carol Malone suggested that Meghan should simply give it back, echoing sentiments expressed by Piers Morgan on Twitter.

Some argue that the Queen should intervene, as this situation may frustrate her.

Mr. Witton criticized Meghan and Prince Harry, describing them as charlatans who disregard the reputation of the British royal family and the Queen herself.