Meghan Markle and Harry ‘tried their best’ says Omid Scobie

Omid Scobie, who co-authored Finding Freedom, penned a letter to set the record straight about claims made in the High Court case. He strongly refuted the claim he and fellow biographer Carolyn Durand were given a copy of Meghan’s letter as they worked on their book.

He wrote: “This claim is not true.

“I did not have a copy of the letter, nor did Ms Durand.

“At no time were we provided with a copy of the letter, or the text of the letter, or any extracts from the texts of the letter.”

Mr Scobie said the first time he and Ms Durand read about Meghan’s emotional handwritten letter to her dad was in February 2019 when extracts of it were published in the Mail on Sunday in a series of stories.

We will use your email address only for sending you newsletters. Please see our Privacy Notice for details of your data protection rights.

He insisted the parts of the letter which were included in his biography were “taken from those articles”.

His letter, dated December 24, 2020, was sent to Schillings, the law firm representing the Duchess of Sussex, and Keith Mathieson of the defendant’s solicitors RPC.

Meghan, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) publisher of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, over a series of articles which reproduced parts of a handwritten letter sent to Mr Markle.

The royal sent the letter to her father, who lives in Mexico, in August 2018.

Months later parts of it were splashed across the newspaper after Mr Markle gave an interview to a journalist and offered the letter for publication.

The Duchess’ father wanted the Mail On Sunday to help him “set the record straight” on his relationship with his daughter and approved the extracts of a letter used by the newspaper, the High Court has heard.

The 76-year-old believed events relating to their relationship and communications between them had been “seriously misrepresented” in an article published by People magazine in February 2019, according to Edward Verity, editor of the Mail On Sunday.

In the People article, anonymous friends of Meghan claimed she had reached out to her father in a bid to heal their rift.

DON’T MISS
Meghan Markle ‘horror’ at character analysis branded ‘pseudoscience’ [ANALYSIS]
Meghan letter was attempt to defend claim she was ‘unloving daughter’ [INSIGHT]
Meghan ‘reached breaking point’ in ‘painful’ relationship with father [REVEALED]

The Duchess has applyied for summary judgment in her favour, a legal step which would see parts of the case resolved without a trial, and hearing before Mr Justice Warby began on Tuesday.

In a witness statement before the court, Mr Verity said that after the People magazine article was published, the Mail On Sunday’s Los Angeles-based reporter, Caroline Graham, discussed it with Mr Markle.

Mr Verity alleged: “It emerged that he (Mr Markle) considered the events described in the People article leading to the breakdown of his relationship with the claimant, including their correspondence after the wedding, had been very seriously misrepresented.”

Meghan Markle: Royal expert gives court case update

Mr Verity claimed this was for a number of reasons, including Mr Markle’s view that a description of the contents of Meghan’s letter to him was “false” and that Mr Markle believed events leading up to Meghan’s wedding to the Duke of Sussex “had been described entirely from the claimant’s point of view and in a way that Mr Markle believed was very unfair to him”.

In a statement, Mr Verity said Mr Markle wanted to “set the record straight” about what had happened leading up to the royal nuptials.

The statement read: “In order to tell Caroline his story he provided her with a copy of the letter the claimant had sent him.

“He did not want the whole letter published because he thought it made his daughter look terrible, but he wanted to show people that what they might have read in People magazine was inaccurate and unfair to him.

“He also provided information as to the various ways in which the People article, and the claimant’s letter to him, in his view contained false information.”

Mr Verity said he was satisfied that there were “good reasons” to publish the story.

Source: Read Full Article