Virginia Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies might depose Duchess Meghan

Mcc0092366 The Duke and Duchess of Sussex attend the 91st Field of Remembrance at Westminster Abbey, meeting veterans

The lawyer David Boies is good at getting attention for his cases and his clients. That’s one of the reasons why Virginia Giuffre hired him. Boies is Virginia’s main lawyer in her civil suit against Prince Andrew. Andrew wants the lawsuit dismissed, and a decision about that will be made in January. If the lawsuit goes ahead, additional witnesses will obviously be called upon, and likely there are more depositions to come. Which brings me to the latest Royalist piece in the Daily Beast. Tom Sykes spoke to Boies, who (again) knows how to get attention for his clients. Boies told Sykes that he was considering deposing the Duchess of Sussex in the case, because she might have been a witness to some of Prince Andrew’s behavior while Meghan was in the UK.

David Boies, the star attorney representing Virginia Roberts Giuffre in her legal action against Prince Andrew, may seek to depose Meghan Markle as part of Giuffre’s civil suit, as he believes she may have picked up “important knowledge” about the embattled royal’s behavior.

“She is somebody we can count on to tell the truth,” Boies told The Daily Beast. Markle, he said, was a potential deposition subject for three reasons: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her. Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge. Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”

If Giuffre’s case gets past a January 4 motion to dismiss by Andrew’s side, the suit will enter full discovery mode, in the course of which both Andrew and Giuffre will have to give videotaped oral depositions and answer written “interrogatories.”

“Andrew will be forced to give evidence under oath” as part of that process, Boies said, adding, “He has no way of escaping that.”

Boies said that as many as 10 or 12 third parties could be deposed and that another potential target could be Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, although getting a deposition for her as a non-U.S. resident would be more complex than Meghan, as the British courts would have to approve the request. Boies said, “We would likely take one or two depositions of people close to Andrew who would have knowledge of his actions. That might include his ex-wife. It could possibly be his brother.”

Asked if he might seek to depose Andrew’s mother, Boies said, “I don’t think, out of respect and deference, and her age, we would seek to depose the queen. I don’t think she is going to have any knowledge that other people don’t have. I think that he is unlikely to have spoken as freely to his mother about some of this stuff as he might have to his contemporaries, or his ex-wife.”

Boies said that Prince Harry’s wife, who is an American citizen living in the United States and therefore obligated to co-operate, “is one of the people we are considering” but cautioned that a firm decision had not yet been made.

[From The Daily Beast]

Boies is saying Meghan’s name for several reasons. One, she’s an American citizen, living in the US and technically it would be less of a hassle to depose Meghan, as opposed to going through embassies and the State Department and everybody else to depose foreign nationals. Two, Boies is putting pressure on Andrew, saying that he (Boies) can “get” to members of the royal family. Three, by using Meghan’s name, he’s simply drawing more attention to the strength of Virginia’s case, and his plans to go to the mattresses for his client. Just to underline this point: Meghan is not in trouble and Boies doesn’t actually believe that Meghan is a witness to serious crimes. If anything, she would be deposed to speak to Andrew’s character and how she saw him behave from 2016-2020.

(L-R) Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds attend the annual Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall on November 09, 2019 in London, England.

Trooping the Colour Ceremony, London, UK - 8 Jun 2019

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

151 Responses to “Virginia Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies might depose Duchess Meghan”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Chic says:

    Just headlines. Putting the fear of god in RF to deal with Andrew.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Well, you have to admit it certainly is. Unfortunately, now Meghan will face unpleasant headlines, not that she hasn’t already, as the royals on Salty Island of Racist will run with it as a reflection of the rabid dogs they are. Unless Boies is seriously looking into deposing Meghan, I don’t care for him using Meghan as a way to garner headlines. His comments puts Meghan into the position of more hate and smear campaigns on Salty Island of Racist.

      • Tessa says:

        It will attract the awful comments by the media. Meghan was around Andrew when he was protected by the Queen. Why not ask Fergie who is all over the place talking about Andrew.

      • Songs (Or it didnt happen) says:

        It isn’t fair to Meghan, but, Meghan is not the attorney’s priority. Getting some measure of justice or even acknowledgement for Virginia is.

      • superashes says:

        Discovery in litigation isn’t a fishing expedition. The likelihood that Meghan would have observed Andrew doing something to other underage women is pretty much less than zero, and this lawyer knows that. He is basically chumming the water by using her name and doing so at her expense. It is complete garbage and does nothing to get a measure of justice for his client.

        He must have some doubts as to whether he could subpoena Harry, who would have been the obvious choice.

      • Snappyfish says:

        A fishing expedition is exactly what discovery is. The idea is finding the hidden. The idea of deposing the DoS because she has been in a room w/PedoAndy is the ludicrous part. She didn’t see him molest anyone. I’m guessing he was on his best behavior (unless he made a pass at her) which wouldn’t surprise me

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @Tessa – “why not ask Fergie”? The lawyer’s statement said they are considering that, but the hurdle is that Fergie is not in America. As for why pick on Meghan? Publicity, obviously. But then there is also point #3 that the lawyer made — that she is someone who will tell the truth. By implication, he is saying it doesn’t matter who else in that family is interviewed, because they will all lie.

      • HeyJude says:

        Precisely, I don’t care for it either, I don’t think anyone who knows what Meghan has and does face will. I’d personally would lose a lot of goodwill toward’s Giuffres case if she actually tries to depose another person who has been horrible victimized by the royal family and will be blamed forever by a certain segment of British establishment forever if forced testify.

        Throwing a fellow victim to the dogs of racism is not a good look. I’m quite surprised to even hear this, I considered Giuffre and her legal case very credible.

        This is irresponsible publicity type stunts you’d only expect from someone in a losing position. I’m not sure why in the world they’d think this sounds like a winning tactic.

      • vs says:

        @HeyJude — +1,000,000,000,000 ……exactly! I have lost some of the goodwill I had towards Virginia. She did suffer at the hands of Andrew but why skip Harry, Andrew’s nephew to go after Meghan….this to me reads like a publicity stunt as Meghan’s name attract eyes and clicks by the millions….this is not a good look for her case!

        Why does David Boies need a pulicity stunt? he is well known by himself and why not highlight that the queen is covering for her pedo son?

      • superashes says:

        @snappyfish – No, it is not a fishing expedition. Third parties that are not involved in a case can only be compelled to testify via subpoena, and since Meghan isn’t a resident in the jurisdiction where this case is pending they would need to file a miscellaneous action in California to issue the subpoena. At that point anyone with an ounce of common sense would move to quash this nonsense and seek a protective order, and frankly, I would also seek attorney’s fees. You don’t get to waste hours of someone else’s time as well as their money (for them both to pay to travel and then pay to have an attorney represent them at a deposition), much less in a case where you are in essence implicating them with knowledge about the rape of an underage woman, because you want to make a media splash. Unless this lawyer can point to some concrete basis for why the Duchess would have discoverable information, this is going nowhere, and I can guarantee you that Virginia’s attorney 100% knows this to be the case.

      • nina says:

        This makes no sense. We are talking about one of the top lawyers in this country. There is no way that Boies would even do this. He is an expert in his field. These people are unhinged. Now they trying to smear Guiffre’s lawyer too. Pedrew must have been told by his lawyers that he is going to lose.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Can we even be certain that Boies spoke to Tom Sykes? This wouldn’t be the first time Sykes put out something that wasn’t true. Boies is famous enough that he could go on record with any number of more high profile, credible outlets. I’m skeptical about Syke’s story. Wouldn’t this only be something to happen if Andrew’s case goes to trial?

      • ML says:

        Tom Sykes is cranky and bent out of shape over the Sussexes’ Christmas card; I hope he’s wrong about this as well! Meghan should NOT be popping up as a headline in Virginia Guiffre’s lawsuit at all. I wish VG all the best and hope that she nails Pedrew, but Meghan should not be used to drum up headlines here: Meghan has had nothing to do with Andrew during his Maxwell/ Epstein days. Why not depose Bill Clinton? Or some other Americans who met with Pedrew, Maxwell and Epstein? Harry might know something, too. Leave Meghan out of this.

        Edit, going through the comments below and discovering that many of you already mentioned what I just posted on. +1

      • vs says:

        @Agreatreckoning — I answered above before seeing your response. Indeed, David Boies can get much more reputable newspapers to listen to him why talk to a royal gossiper?

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Syke’s is Daily Beast’s Newsweek’s Jack Royston. Both royalists from publications that were sibling companies. They are both sly in writing stories about Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Boies is representing someone fighting a member of the royal family. His first media outlet isn’t going to be someone that can be easily ascertained as a royalist about an ifcome. Dudes are working hard for their end of the year click bonuses.

        I believe Meghan, Duchess of Sussex to be a honest & truthful person. I don’t believe there is anything she could say that wouldn’t be disqualified as hearsay. She does not have knowledge from that time. Saying they would maybe depose Harry would have more credibility. Tom Sykes/Daily Beast are playing a different angle/game and it’s not in favor of the Duchess of Sussex.imo

        Seriously, Boies would be better off saying he might depose Kate. She has been around the RF much longer and lord knows, she is terrible at random questions. Syke’s is bullsh#ting for clicks.

    • aftershocks says:

      I don’t care what the strategy is, it’s pure bs as Meghan has zip to do with Andrew’s behavior. Plus, Meghan was not around him long term or enough to be able to speak authoritatively about any of his behavior, especially not during the time in question when Meghan and Harry had not even met yet!

      Boies might as well have said he’s considering deposing Prince Harry, who has clearly been around and known his uncle longer than Meghan has! But it would be the same outcome. Harry knew Prince Andrew mostly growing up as a kid. Once Harry went off to school at Eton and then Sandhurst, and then entered the military, etc., he was surely never around Andrew that much except for family holiday gatherings, and especially not during the period in question. Harry understandably would know Eugenie better than he would know her father!

      This is useless attention-seeking p.r. I don’t know about it serving to send any messages to either Andrew or the royal firm. If questioned, Meghan will most certainly tell the truth: and that’s namely that she has no significant insight to provide about Prince Andrew’s behavior or his character. She barely knows him. She was never ‘an associate’ of Andrew.

  2. HufflepuffLizLemon says:

    I appreciate Boies’ work and efforts on Virginia Guiffre’s behalf and I hope he obligates Andrew to finally face some sort of retribution.
    I hate that he put Meghan’s name even in association with Andrew but I understand the goals.

    • Mac says:

      Meghan has f*ck all to do with this and her name never should have been mentioned.

      • Tessa says:

        It will bring up all the well Kate was not called she has CLASS, etc etc etc. Meghan should be left out of it.

      • tempest prognosticator says:

        Exactly. Meghan was absolutely not a “close associate” of Andrew. Leave her out of this mess.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Mixed feelings. No way did Meghan observe anything weird. IDK it’s possible Andrew was an jerk to her but no way did she observe predatory behavior. But the article makes good points about the legal strategy.

      • PrincessK says:

        It will never happen. It is a publicity ploy

    • superashes says:

      I don’t understand it at all. The royal family doesn’t give a damn about Meghan, and the Court isn’t going to let him subpoena Meghan unless he can meet basic criteria to establish she has information relevant to this case, which he can’t. He is a lawyer, he knows that. Putting Meghan’s name out there was a stunt at her expense, and makes it look like they are desperate.

      • Charm says:

        Exactly. And its a real turn off of virginia’s case by #Sussexsquad. I believe i spk for many that we DO NOT appreciate this obvious using of M’s name to drag her into this mess.

        Why doesnt he get betty? She had the head pedo and the female pimp SITTING ON BETTY’S THRONE. We can all assume that betty gave them permission. I mean, why not assume that? Just as boies can assume that M knows something abt PedoAndrew. Its more likely that betty saw and heard him planning to fck with little girls. So go subpoena her!! But no….he has to single out the first black royal and “other” her like all those other fckrs hv done.

    • Louise177 says:

      I’m baffled why people think deposing Meghan is a good strategy or that this will scare Andrew. If anything it shows desperation. Meghan knows nothing and her few conversations with him was probably no more idle chitchat. He’s not going to confess to crimes to a stranger. It would make sense to depose Harry. I seriously doubt he knows anything more than Meghan but he at least knows the kind of person Andrew is.

    • Nic919 says:

      Lawyers do have ethical obligations and just tossing Meghan’s name out there for publicity when she would never realistically be a witness is close to the line if not crossing the line. Meghan married into the family after all the alleged incidents took place and Andrew is her uncle in law that has she has maybe encountered half a dozen times. There would be more basis to depose Kate and even she wouldn’t be a relevant witness.

      • LaraW” says:

        I agree with you— that being said, no one ever accused Boies of always walking the straight and narrow.

    • Waitwhat? says:

      While it’s good for Birgina Guiffre that she has a shark like Boies representing her, he’s in no way a white knight. He represents/represented Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, and also Harvey Weinstein.

      • Lorelei says:

        @WaitWhat, exactly. That was the first thing I said to my husband when I saw this asinine headline the other night. Boies is such a complicated figure.

        Honestly, I feel like even if I was a hardcore Meghan hater, even *I* would see that this is a stupid stunt to grab headlines and that obviously she knows absolutely nothing more about Andrew than any of us do, from the information that’s been public for years.
        Then again, many of the people who hate her seem to be truly mentally unwell and detached from reality, so who knows.

  3. Woke says:

    Lol it doesn’t strenghten her case at all it just scream desperate and attention seeking like je doesn’t have any other cards to play. If he said Charles who is rumored to have attended parties with Eisntein and had decades of friendship with a pedophile it might have been better.
    I dislike that Meghan after everything she went through and as a woc became just a pawn in other people games. People can’t seem to left her alone.

    • Lady Digby says:

      I resent Meghan’s name being dragged into this and yes Daily Fail have already made a stink about it to twist it into her wanting to testify against RF- purlease!! Lawyer also mentions Charles and Fergie. He should be pursuing royal protection officers and their log books.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        This is why I have a feeling Charles will continue to protect Andrew after the queen dies. Charles does not want to create a situation where authorities can poke around in the personal, financial, and legal affairs of the royal family. Charles will protect Andrew in order to protect HIS OWN secrets.

  4. Becks1 says:

    Yeah this is just about making Andrew nervous, making him realize that there ARE some royals that Virginia has access to for depositions etc if necesssary.

    I don’t think Boies is actually going to depose Meghan because I feel like her answers would be mostly “I don’t know,” “I can’t recall” or “i have no knowledge of that” or something similar. Boies knows that Meghan and Andrew weren’t sitting around talking about Virginia or Epstein or anything related to that whole situation.

    But putting her name out there might be enough to get Andrew nervous.

    @LaraW or other litigators here – is there any way to get Harry to a deposition?

    • JT says:

      I don’t like like this. I don’t like how this guy is using Meghan of all people to get attention for this. What the hell would she know about Andrew besides standing next to him on a balcony? And why not depose Harry? He’s in America, probably has some sort of residency, and he’s been around Andrew his whole life. Surely Harry would be more aware of Andrew’s shenanigans better than Meghan? It’s not right. Hell, Harry knew Charles was low key shady, he might have heard something about Andrew. Why is Meghan always getting dragged into the royals’ bullsh*t? And the whole “out of deference for the queen bit” just pisses me off. This is America. She deserves nothing. She would definitely know more about Andrew, she’s paying for his defense. That’s how you get attention; depose the damn queen. Leave Meg out of it.

      • Becks1 says:

        He can’t depose the Queen. that would never, ever happen and he knows it, so he’s not going to waste his energy trying and he’s covering up for that by the “out of deference” bit.

      • JT says:

        I get that he can’t depose the queen but he can use her to get attention like he’s trying to do with Meghan. Why not just say that legally the queen is off limits or something. Why come off as though the crown means something? Your suing prince for heavens sake. And your an American lawyer, allegedly aggressive, just say that although the queen probably knows a lot about what her son was doing, we can’t go after her.

        It just seems ridiculous to bring up the one person who has so little to do with anything in that family. She couldn’t even leave the house, how does Andrew factor in that?

      • LaraW” says:

        I was actually surprised when he said he might depose “his brother,” with no indication as to WHICH brother. That, more than anything, felt like a warning shot to the RF.

        Obviously the mind immediately leaps to Charles, but the more interesting choice would be Edward. I know he works for the RF, but has he worked in a diplomatic capacity for the UK? I don’t know enough about Edward’s career to know if he’s taken foreign tours as a representative of the UK, hosted foreign dignitaries in a diplomatic capacity, entered into “trade agreements” on behalf of the Crown? What is his status there?

      • swirlmamad says:

        My question is, why can’t he depose Harry rather than Meghan? He’s living in the US also…or is it that he’s a UK expat so they would still have to jump through hoops to get him to appear? Harry would know way more than Meghan anyway. I agree with you JT….I get what Boies is trying to do here but this is only going to bring Meghan more grief. Leave the poor woman alone, for God’s sake. They won’t touch the Queen out of respect, but sure, let’s keep using the WOC who’s already been to hell and back as a punching bag. 🙄

      • Laura says:

        I just have to say that I LOVE the idea of the Duchess of Sussex and/or Harry (if possible) being part of the takedown of Prince Andrew. It seems far-fetched that she would know anything but if she does I do think she will tell the truth. The RF know that Megan and Harry will tell the truth too…

      • Becks1 says:

        @LaraW I don’t know that much about Edward’s career either, but he has definitely taken foreign tours as a representative of the UK and he has hosted foreign dignitaries in a diplomatic capacity (I’m pretty sure of that second one at any rate.) So he has definitely represented “The Crown” on an international level.

    • FancyPants says:

      I can sort of see a trace of a strategy here, but I can also see it backfiring spectacularly. Meghan was never liked or trusted by this family. There’s no way they were sharing deep dark family secrets around her. What if Andrew says, “go ahead, see if I care?” Then Meghan has to deal with the stress of it all and have her name printed in articles about this pederast, when ultimately all her answers will only be “I don’t know” (as someone said above). Depose Fergie instead, she has answers and she isn’t part of the royal family (cue the quickie wedding).

      • Becks1 says:

        That’s why I honestly don’t think he’s going to depose Meghan. I think this is a media ploy and I get why some don’t like it, but I think its part of his strategy to rattle Andrew and his team. Who knows if it will actually work?

        I did get the impression from these comments though that he is going to try to depose Fergie. She’s not off the hook.

    • LaraW” says:

      In all honesty, I have no idea. If Harry were just another UK national living in the US, I would say absolutely. But he’s a prince who worked in a diplomatic capacity for at least part of the time period that Boies might be interested in. Harry literally stepped back from royal duties when he came to the US and ostensibly hasn’t had contact with Andrew since then. Also, Harry was in Afghanistan and probably didn’t have contact with Andrew during his service, so he can’t serve as some kind of material witness. Anything he knew, he would have learned secondhand and is therefore hearsay.

      So I would say yes, Boies can certainly serve the subpoena, but Harry could (and probably would) moved to quash.

    • pottymouth pup says:

      Unless they know that Meghan actually witnessed something of note, I don’t think the threat to call Meghan will put any fear in Andrew or the rest of the Firm, not at all.

      Suggesting that he’d depose Harry since he’s in the states, would be something that would put fear into the firm, especially if they’re not sure if Harry would quash a subpoena or would agree to speak to Boies

      • Songs (Or it didnt happen) says:

        Unless they are worried Meghan might have seen or heard the slightest thing because they know she won’t do shit to cover up or help them after all their nonsense.

      • windyriver says:

        I wonder. Not the lawyers, but the family? I can see them being rattled. They don’t like Meghan or trust her – they all lie so much, likely don’t trust each other either. And we’re seeing more and more how many of them have secrets to hide from the public. I can imagine them suddenly wondering what Meghan might know (and not just about Andrew).

    • Nic919 says:

      Boies knows Meghan wouldn’t have been in the family when the material facts of the lawsuit are alleged to have taken place. Naming her as a potential witness is just irresponsible and she could easily refuse any subpoena and get costs for spending the time to object to it. Being American or not is irrelevant to the litigation, he should be focusing on actual witnesses, like Sarah Ferguson, and even Beatrice and Eugenie, who all visited the islands owned by Epstein.

      • LaraW” says:

        You know this, I know this, Boies knows this, Andrew’s lawyer knows this, everyone on CB knows this. But if I were Andrew’s team tasked with defending, well, Andrew, I would lean heavily into the “throw up smoke and mirrors and create a huge media circus to obfuscate the real issues at hand,” and Meghan is the perfect vehicle through which to do that. I think Boies is trying to cut that (potential) distraction off at its knees.

        I really cannot think of another reason that would make this gratuitous media display worth it from a strategic point of view.

        Or you know… maybe it really does just come down to Boies’ ego. But he would have had to get (or should have gotten) Virginia’s consent to give this interview and I can’t really imagine Virginia agreeing to this without it having some strategic value. If he didn’t consult with Virginia before making this move, then… yeah. Lots of lines crossed there.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Nic919 and LaraW, one of my immediate thoughts is: I wonder how Sykes framed his questions? We all know that will determine how the question is answered. Was this posed as hypothetical questions of deposing members of the royal family–specifically the California royals? I don’t know but something about this bothers me, because it’s all so “may seek, potential target”, etc., The only definite statement was the one he made about Andrew would be deposed. I don’t know if this is Sykes jerrymandering an interview or what? I do know that attorneys can make idiotic statements sometimes, but this one seems over the top to me. It’ll be interesting to see if Bois addresses this at some point.

        I suspect, LaraW, you may be closest to a logical explanation. If logic plays into that article at all.

  5. Lauren says:

    The tabloids will use this to blame Meghan for Randy Andy’s legal troubles.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Lauren, they’ll try, but I really think this is so ridiculous of a stretch that even most of the derangers will be able to see it for the nonsense that it is — anyone with a brain cell and even a tiny shred of integrity will see this is purely a stunt to grab headlines using Meghan’s name, even if they cannot stand Meghan. There are probably a handful of conspiracy theorists that will try to run with it, but I honestly don’t think it will be taken seriously. I sure hope not.

  6. Shawna says:

    Meghan probably barely saw him or heard about him! Bringing her into this would just bring a whole new phase of the hate campaign against her. Can you imagine?!

  7. Beloved says:

    Harry is in the US too. He should be the royal that’s deposed. That’s Andrews nephew who’s has been around him all his life, who vacationed at his Swiss chalet is very close to his daughters.

    • Hoopjumper says:

      My first thought. I find this so odd. Why not Harry?

    • Apple says:

      Exactly. Not his nephew, not his daughters pictured with Maxwell at their parties but Meghan??! WTF is he on? When will they stop dragging Meghan into their bullshit scandals! We already know that she experienced suicide ideation before. WHAT THE ACTUAL F. LEAVE HER ALONE!!!

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t know about Harry, but he doesn’t have jurisdiction over the York princesses. Meghan would be much easier to get into a deposition than any UK citizen.

      • Woke says:

        @Beck1 he himself admit that it’s not a done deal yet that he’ll depose her so he could have named anyone other than Meghan. It’s cruel to bring Meghan name I don’t why you’re defending it. He named her because he see her as an easier target nothing more.

      • Becks1 says:


        I’ve said somewhere else on here that I don’t like it, but I can see why he’s mentioning the idea. It’s cruel, but as I said before Meghan isn’t his client. I can separate the two things in my head.

      • Jan90067 says:

        I’d think as a “Prince of the Realm” Harry would have diplomatic immunity, even if he “stepped back”? He IS still in the line of succession and hasn’t abdicated anything.

        Any CB Lawyers have info on this?

      • lisanne says:

        Harry is not in the US working in a diplomatic capacity on behalf of his home country, so he has no immunity.

  8. equality says:

    Sorry but I think he should use somebody else to “get at” Andrew. Meghan has gone through enough because of the RF. She most likely only saw Andrew a handful of times at mostly formal events. By dragging her name in he is lighting up all the derangers who want to claim a connection between Meghan and Epstein and that she was a “yacht girl”. It’s gross.

    • Woke says:

      Exactly I don’t see how people are actually agreeing with this move.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        I don’t like it all either. Boies is using her position as someone that will garner headlines, nothing more. Meghan has suffered enough from the rabid dogs of Salty Island of Racist. Boies should have NEVER uttered her name!

    • Apple says:

      +1. This will only backfire on Guiffre.

      • equality says:

        Especially if all Meghan can say is that Andrew was always polite and nice to her. Since she was a friend of Eugenie and H’s girlfriend/wife, he wouldn’t be likely to have said or done anything around her.

    • Tessa says:

      I think this is also a way of deflecting from Andrew’s case using Meghan. Something that has been done very obviously.

      • KC says:

        Exactly THIS! In a strange turn of events she is being thrown under the bus as tabloid fodder all while minding her own business just trying to live a merry black woman Christmas as wife, mother, and US citizen and she’s being used/sacrificed for members of the BRF who deserve to be raked over the coals.😒. I hope this is all just talk but even mentioning this now makes her talk of British Media town and is shining a spotlight on the target she had on her back that she was trying to hide in the shadows with. This woman just can’t seem to get a break or stay off the BM’s radar or out of the BRF’s mouths and as a black woman I hate that for her as the only black person closely associated with them. 😔

    • Demi says:

      What’s Meghan association with Andrew other than seeing him at church service sure she sat next to him one time or stood in the balcony but that only because he comes after the Sussex on the line of Succession she knows nothing about that creep private life

      • KC says:

        @Demi not sure if you were responding to me or the article in general but I agree with you-she’s not buds with him. When I wrote “associated” I was focused more on her association with the British Royal Family in particular that the only close association (married into the family) of a black person with them is negative and too frequently dragged through the media.

  9. Noki says:

    This seems like a Reach!!

  10. lanne says:

    I think this is just a calculated media play, and I think it will backfire, terribly. For one, it gives tabloids reason to write about Meghan, and connect her with “scandal.” The Meghan haters have already tried to connect Meghan to Jeffrey Epstein. Second, I highly doubt that she saw pedo Andy more than 6 times over that period, and likely exchanged no more than 2 dozen words. Deposing Harry would make more sense, or even one of pedo Andy’s protection officers or aides. Finally, it makes Virginia Guiffre look like the sleazy opportunist that the royals think she is. Her lawyer is using Meghan’s profile for guiffres own ends. That sucks for so many reasons, including her being a white woman using a black woman to advance her own aims. Bad, bad idea.

    Luckily Meghan has her own legal team who will likely come out and say that Meghan has no material information to share. The groom at the stable where the pedo rides would know more. The chauffeur. His own daughters. His brothers. Why not depose Princess Anne. Or Cain and Unable? Or the Wessexes, or even 18 year old Lady Louise?

    Meghan doesn’t need this. This isn’t her show. Lawyer needs to keep her name out of his mouth.

    • Becks1 says:

      I agree, but Boies’ client here is not Meghan, it’s Virginia. He’s not worried about protecting Meghan or the tabloids writing about her or whether this is her “show.” he cares about winning for his client.

      Now, I don’t think he’s actually going to depose Meghan, and I think this is a media ploy more than anything, but that’s not because he cares about “protecting” Meghan. That’s not the calculus he’s making in his head right now.

      • LaraW” says:

        It occurred to me that this might be his way of putting Meghan on notice without contacting her or her attorneys directly, giving her team a kind of heads up. I don’t think he actually wants to depose Meghan— it would pull the focus away from the actual issues in the case and this lawsuit is high profile enough that it doesn’t need Meghan’s name attached to it.

        But I CAN imagine ANDREW’s team trying to drag Meghan into this to create a huge unrelated distraction.

        In regular course of business, it isn’t a big deal to depose UK citizens residing in the UK, especially if Boies’ firm has a London office (or in the alternative, he likely has friendly law firms willing to effect service of various subpoenas through the proper channels on Virginia’s behalf). In terms of optics, it looks a lot worse for the RF to fight every subpoena tooth and nail and it would really wear thin on a judge. It would also make the public look at Andrew and the RF with greater suspicion (the whole “what do they have to hide” mentality).

        Just, I agree with everyone that his mentioning Meghan so publicly is a very bad look and in poor taste, so my theory is that he might be anticipating and trying to foil Andrew’s strategies. Get the media distraction out of the way— lance the boil now, so to speak— so that by the time service of subpoenas does come around, this will (hopefully) occupy less of the public’s attention.

        I guess what I’m saying is that if I were Andrew’s lawyers trying to create maximum distraction, I would try to bring Meghan into the mix. And if I were Boies trying to prevent that media circus down the road, I would create the media circus on my terms now, let the news cycle play out, and really focus on shining the light on the RF trying to avoid being deposed.

      • Becks1 says:

        LaraW –

        I’m not really following. So you think he’s not going to depose Meghan at all, and is just mentioning it now to sort of get the media focus onto Meghan for NOW so that its played out by the time the subpoenas are actually served, and then the focus can be on who is trying to refuse the subpoena (i.e. other royal family members)?

        Or that he knows Andrew’s lawyers are going to want to depose Meghan so same thing, he’s getting the media coverage of that out of the way now, so when she’s actually served its not as big a story anymore, and then again, focus on the royals who are trying to fight the subpoena?

      • LaraW” says:

        The latter. The ideal outcome of this is that Andrew’s team would see the public’s backlash and decide not to depose Meghan at all. But if they go forward with the subpoena, then this gets the story out there and reduces the whole “OMG SHOCK HEADLINES” factor.

        And a sneaky thing is that it gives Meghan’s team time to prep their legal strategy, consider the merits of either cooperating with a subpoena if she is served, or moving to quash. If she decides to cooperate, then start the process of depo prep now— helping her recall every possible interaction she may have had with Andrew, get the legal team thinking about what she might be questioned about.

        Usually you do not give a potential deponent THIS MUCH TIME to prepare for a depo, or prepare drafting a motion to quash. Usually you drop the bomb when you serve the subpoena. The freakin motion to dismiss hearing hasn’t even taken place and Boies is mentioning the possibility of deposing Meghan (and by extension, Harry)? Yeah, this isn’t something you do just to grab headlines, especially if you have all the publicity you need already.

      • Nic919 says:

        Boies can’t just randomly depose anyone just because they are American and related through marriage to Andrew. This is incredibly stupid of him to do and it won’t help the case at all. Meghan barely met Andrew and it’s not like he confessed all to her. This is just for media attention and it will backfire.

      • LaraW” says:

        @Nic919— I fully admit that I may be projecting or leaning too much on my personal experience, but in terms of engagement with the media for civil litigation, we’ve only ever done it if there are multiple advantages that can be gained by such a move. This active courting of the press and giving an extended interview to the Daily Beast of all places— not NYT or some other news outlet— it seems too heavy handed and unsophisticated for me to take at face value.

    • Tessa says:

      If anybody it should be Fergie.

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh he’s definitely going to try for Fergie. And he also said one of Andrew’s brothers….now wouldn’t that be interesting?

    • Athena says:

      @Lanne, I agree with everything you said here. Why would Virginia drag Meghan into something that has nothing to do with her. As a woman who has been victimized one would think she would not try to harm another woman.
      Andrew has never even so much as acknowledge Meghan when in her vicinity and it’s not as though Sarah and her daughters would be telling Meghan about Andrew’s fondness for your girls over tea.
      This really makes me angry. Why should Meghan have to now spend money paying an attorney to deal with this nonsense.
      If they thought this would bring support from those who support Meghan they grossly miscalculated.
      Meghan team should issue a statement and put an end to this before the media coverage and the haters get out of hand

  11. Jan says:

    When will they stop using Meghan’s name for attention.
    He is rubbing it in the BM face, that she is someone who tells the truth, and he knows how the BRF treated her.

  12. Bendy Windy says:

    Ugh. I understand why he would say this—as you said, he has jurisdiction over Meghan and it’s great posturing in the press and will get attention. However, it’s just more fodder for U.K. tabs. I can write the “Meghan turns on the RF by trying to put Andrew in prison” headlines already.

  13. els says:

    Why can’t they leave her alone? I know it’s for a good cause but this fucking creep is guilty, why should Meghan be involved. It’s the Royal Family that won’t take the responsibility and tries to … Sabotage (?) This trial to save his non-sweaty (his words) ass. He’s guilty, he’s making contradicting statements (to not say dumb).
    British media will find a way to blame Meghan for this.

  14. Sofia says:

    I highly doubt Meghan will be deposed and Boies knows that too. He’s just using her name because he knows it will get media attention. And more media attention means the less Andrew can ignore it. He’s a known pitbull and this is what he does.

    • 2cents says:

      I think Tom Sykes was the one who directly asked Boies the question if he would depose Meghan in this lawsuit, it’s not Boies’ idea. This reminds me of the times when British tabloids and Piers Morgan posed suggestive questions about Meghan to Donald Trump in order to provoke a negative response from Trump about Meghan.

      It seems that British tabloids will do anything to continue their negative narrative about Meghan. Yikes!!

    • Ginger says:

      Agreed Sofia. This seems more of a media ploy than anything. I highly doubt he will ACTUALLY deposed Meghan. He just wants this to get Andrew’s attention.

  15. WithTheAmerican says:

    As horrible as this would be for MM and I doubt she has any info of merit to share, I have to say I’m loving the FAFO component.

    Andrew must be just figuring out that maybe his family screwed him over by driving H and M out, to America, where she is a citizen and must comply if subpoenaed. The Queen finally seeing the implications of allowing Chuck and Bill to bully Harry and Meghan out of the country. Bet she never saw her favorite suffering due to her refusal to stand up for what’s right.

    Oh, RF. Your stupidity does amuse.

  16. Commonwealthy seemed witty at first says:

    Ugh, do not like. Meghan has nothing useful to say about Andrew from 2016-2020 and if anything, Andrew’s lawyers could depose her to say she’s never seen Andrew do anything untoward (likely true). That would be a terrible position to be put in, as a feminist/smart person who must know Andrew is guilty and as Eugenie’s friend who doesn’t want to help put Andrew in jail (is that an option or is it just paying a settlement/officially guilty in the history books?) even if he belongs there. Meghan has been through enough, leave her alone.

  17. AVEA says:

    I just don’t like this. We all know the UK press will try their hardest to make it sound like she knew some of this crap. I get that it gets attention and can put pressure on the family/that mans legal team, but they never cared to throw her under the bus before and they’ll definitely not care now

  18. lanne says:

    I still think it’s a bad idea in principle, but here’s another thought. If Meghan were deposed, it could be a referendum on the royal family. Questions could be asked about how she was treated by various parties as she discusses what she saw or didn’t see. She’d be under oath, right? The royal family definitely doesn’t want this. This might bring the pedo to the negotiating table finally. I don’t want this to happen— I don’t Meghan to be put through a bunch of nonsense that gives ammunition to the tabloids. I prefer the tabloids to be starved of information about the Sussexes.

    Another thought: deposing the Cambridges will probably keep them out of the US for the time being. Mustn’t come to the US where they could be officially served. This will keep all the royals out of the US, I’d guess.

    • Apple says:

      I fking hate this. Meghan has been through enough. Need I remind everyone she was bullied relentlessly by the BM, and because of that became estranged from her terrible father, lost a child because of the stress of her previous lawsuit, experienced suicide ideation, made to feel less than an equal through discrimination with regard to her child’s birthrights, racism, xenophobia, classism and etc. All while receiving no support from that “family”? She should be left alone in peace. That’s all she wants for her and her family now. To drag her into this will only backfire on Boies.

    • Seaflower says:

      I can see this as a potential strategy
      1. use Meghan’s name to get media attention, especially in the UK
      2. Question M more broadly about the culture and behaviour of the RF and courtiers – puts more pressure on the RF to settle for a lot more $ to make it go away.

      I suspect Boise sees that C and W are keeping well away from this (I suspect he thinks the Q won’t pay top $), so he’s trying to drag C and W into it via M to up the financial settlement. They ave more of a vested interest for long term damage to the monarchy to want to make it go away for good. Pay lots of $, A kicked to a drab corner of the UK for the rest of his life….

      Added bonus W will try avoid the US for a while for fear of it being brought up.

      I hate that it’s Meghan he’s using.

  19. Erica says:

    When I saw this I was confused and I still am. While I know Meghan is definitely wanting justice for Virginia, I can’t imagine she enjoys her name being used for press either. What can Meghan do in Virginia’s case? She barely knows Andrew. She didn’t know Andrew when everything occurred. This is an attorney using Meghan’s name for attention and it really rubs me the wrong way.

  20. Amy Bee says:

    This is just an attempt to get attention for the case. It’s disappointing but Meghan’s name gets the clicks and the attention. So if the British press and Royal Family wants her disappear, they’re going to be wishing in vain because they made her more famous than she ever was by smearing her and obsessing over everything she does. I don’t think she will be deposed because she wasn’t a witness to the crime and she barely knows Andrew.

  21. Seraphina says:

    I agree with all points made by Kaiser. And I think this is just out there to make Andrew nervous. Meghan more than likely did not see anything in the short time frame she was there. If (BIG IF) she is privy to info that would be hear say – let’s just say she was told info by certain members – and hear say is not admissible in court. BUT that opens the doors the prosecution being able to ID people who may have first hand knowledge. And THAT is where it gets interesting.
    Any attorneys out there please correct me. I am not one by trade.

  22. Rapunzel says:

    This was a dumbass move.
    It doesn’t put the fear of God into anyone. Nobody thinks it’s impressive that he can “get to” Meghan because Meghan wouldn’t know anything. This is an obvious empty threat and Boies should know better.

    There is no way this helps Virginia. It’s pure theatrics. That is the last thing Virginia needs.

  23. Plums says:

    It’s such an awkward situation for the Sussexes to be in. If it was just Andrew in a vacuum, that’d be one thing, but they both unfortunately respect QEII too much, and more materially, they both genuinely love Eugenie and are at least close to her family if they’re close to anyone else in the royal family, and probably would want to avoid getting even tangentially involved in Andrew’s shit out of resect for her more than anything else. On the other hand, it does feel hypocritical for the outspokenly progressive advocates for mental health and women and girls to be keeping their mouths shut about the sexual predators in their family (because I’m sure it’s not just Andrew).

    • Amy Bee says:

      The same can be said for the rest of the Royal Family who also advocate for women and girls and mental health. Why lay all this at Harry and Meghan’s feet?

      • Plums says:

        because they’re the ones who come to mind when commenting on an article about them?

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Neither Harry nor Meghan are involved in anything to do with Andrew and his criminal associates. End of.

        M&H have no obligation to speak out on anything to do with Harry’s uncle. Simply because a tabloid writes this bs nonsense is no excuse to suggest that M&H are responsible for doing or saying anything. Boies is out of line, regardless of his strategy and intent on behalf of his client.

    • Sofia says:

      So what exactly do you propose H&M do so that it doesn’t “feel hypocritical”? Condemn Andrew and say “yeah he did rape Virginia and other women”. Okay then. Except now they’ll probably be called into the FBI for questioning and not only for Andrew but also for Ghislaine Maxwell. That could go on for months and they wouldn’t be able to do anything in public without people being reminded that they’re being questioned by the FBI. As for others in the family, there may well be there but that isn’t public knowledge and any accusations (that’s what they would be) would not bode well for H&M, both PR wise and family wise.

      If you want to rail against hypocritical family members, turn your attention to Andrew’s own daughter Eugenie who has an anti-slavery and anti trafficking charity and hasn’t once spoken against her own father.

      • Plums says:

        I don’t disagree fundamentally, but recognize that defending them in this way is basically whataboutism, which is not honestly a defense at all.

      • Sofia says:

        @Plums: it just seems you want to criticise H&M for something. You mentioned hypocritical family members and I mentioned Andrew’s own daughter because according to your own comments, she’s being a hypocrite by the way she’s acting (talking about abused women yet not speaking up against her own father – something you want Andrew’s nephew and niece to do)

      • SomeChick says:

        Closing arguments in the Maxwell trial happened the other day. so, nothing about what’s happening now has any bearing on that case.

    • equality says:

      Their family? I believe Meghan has made it clear that they’re “her husband’s” family. Meghan wasn’t even in the RF at the time and Harry would have been away at school. Do you really think that Andrew would do or say anything around H since it could get back to B and E?

  24. Eurydice says:

    I’ve been a “nuisance deposition” a couple of times – basically, called for no reason at all except I happened to be working for the company that was the plaintiff. But it was the defense doing it to drag things out. Not a big deal – just saying “I do not recall” and “I don’t know” over and over for a couple of hours. Still, it’s a waste of time and money and I can’t imagine what Meghan could possibly know about Andrew. When was she ever a “close associate” of Andrew’s?

    Also weird – a reason to depose Meghan is she can be counted on to tell the truth? Yeah, ok, but he’s saying the rest of them won’t tell the truth. Maybe that’s the message he’s trying to send?

    • swirlmamad says:

      Yeah, that stood out to me too. Boies sucks for doing this, but it also is nice to hear that Meghan is seen as trustworthy and truthful in the eyes of the law….as in, everything she’s been saying all along is above board (as we here have all known).

      • WithTheAmerican says:

        Weird your comment wasn’t there when I wrote mine and when it showed up, I realized I had written almost exact same thought!

    • WithTheAmerican says:

      This stood out to me as well. It’s quite the accusation to hurl publicly at the entire family. But also, quite a justifiable accusation.

      ONLY MEGHAN CAN BE TRUSTED TO TELL THE TRUTH as a headline isn’t winning for the RF.

      • Eurydice says:

        Love the possible headline! It would be a nice bookend to anything Piers Morgan has had to say.

  25. mariahlee says:

    Or they could let Meghan mind her business as she has been.

  26. Feeshalori says:

    I would think Fergie and her daughters would have had more close association with Andrew during that time.

  27. Harper says:

    Let’s hope Meghan is employing her “Peaceful under a tree” approach regarding this nonsense and that Schillings has had a word with Bois about using Meghan for publicity’s sake.

  28. Magick Wanda says:

    “,,,as he believes she may have picked up “important knowledge” about the embattled royal’s behaviour.”

    No. Meghan was not around any of that and no one in the RF who knew anything about his pedo ways would have confided in Meghan except Harry. So depose Harry and leave Meghan alone. Hey, how about this? You don’t depose either of them bc they were not part of this at all. Harry was not by Andy’s side when Andy was trolling for trafficked women and I doubt Harry was ever Andy’s confidante. How about you build your case with people who actually know something about what he did rather than just tossing out high profile, attention-getting names that had no involvement whatsoever?

  29. Emily says:

    Agree with the others who’ve said this is a cheap ploy for publicity: Putting her name out there gets headlines.

    While haters will always seize on any chance to smear her, I do think that it’s important to note that, even though he’s just using her name, he’s attached only positive attributes to her. It’s a low bar, to be sure, but “she’s someone we can count on to tell the truth” paints a distinction between her and…unnamed others.

    • Tessa says:

      Andrew’s attitude towards the case is obvious, hiding to avoid being served and that interview he gave.

  30. MsIam says:

    This attorney knows that Meghan doesn’t know anything about Andrew or his Epstein activities. The only thing I can think he hopes to accomplish by this is by trying to provoke her into making some type of general denouncing of anyone involved in sex trafficking whether as a client or as the ones running the scheme. How the women should be believed and deserve justice. It’s a sh!tty move to use Meghan but he knows she’s popular in the US and is known as an advocate for women.

  31. WithTheAmerican says:

    What strikes me most about this is strategically what a different place the RF is in due to M and H leaving and living in the U.S.

    The RF should not be in the position (in their mind and prior to this) where their power to ignore heinous, credible accusations is called into question.

    But now that their family is divided and H and M have huge power here, suddenly the RF can’t dictate media coverage to cover things up.

    While M knows nothing about this, the real alarm for the RF is this is always a possibility from now on. And if M or H had to sit for a deposition, establishing questions might be very unflattering for the RF.

    Long term this looks like an unintended consequence for RF of historic measure.

  32. aquarius64 says:

    This is a stupid stunt by the lawyer. Meghan would have to be an eyewitness at the time to be of value. The message is: we will get a royal the Windsors mistreated to get you more bad headlines in the US.

  33. Mslove says:

    Perhaps Meghan saw Andy sweat, lol. And I thought my in-laws were bad.
    I wonder if Boies gave Meaghan’s team a heads up about this very strange article……

  34. Rapunzel says:

    You know what though, as pointless as this seems, wouldn’t it be something if secretly Meg did know something, and contacted Boies to help Virginia? And helped take down PedoAndy?

    Imagine the Lifetime movie!!

    • Athena says:

      Please, don’t even give the reporters any idea that somehow Meghan contacted Virginia’s attorneys. These people, the BRF, barely tolerated Meghan’s presence so nothing was said that she can share in this case.
      Meghan’s life is full, she’s in a good place, she doesn’t need to be dragged into Andrew’s mess.

    • Apple says:

      The derangers are delusional enough. Enough with your delusions please. It’s absolute bullshit to bring Meghan into this. Such theatrics will not help their case at all. I can only see this bullshit move backfiring on them.

  35. Athena says:

    Ghislaine Maxwell is sitting in a jail cell in New York City, if Virginia’s attorney want to scare Andrew it would make more sense for him to say he plans to deposition her.
    There was absolutely no reason to bring Meghan’s name into this. It’s a bad look for this white woman (Virginia) to be dragging Meghan who she doesn’t know, who was not around at the time those things happened to her, into her court case. It’s disrespectful to Meghan.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      First, Maxwell will not answer any questions because her own criminal case is pending. Second, even if she does answer, it will all be lies. And third, if she is scheduled for a deposition and someone suspects she may talk, she could end up with an Epstein-type ending in prison.

      Yes, it is disrespectful to drag Meghan into this. But lawyers’ loyalty is 100% to their client, not anyone else. Boies cannot do anything illegal or unethical, but he can be disrespectful and play whatever card (like OJ’s race card) that he thinks could help his client.

  36. janey janey says:

    I can’t believe I am first one to see this but like EVERYTHING this isn’t about Meg. You know who else is in the USA, under physical subpoena jurisdiction, and been around Andrew his entire life and in the inner royal circle? HARRY.

    I would seriously be shitting bricks if I was a royal and basically have someone who was in the inner circle now fully subject to another country’s subpoena laws and forced to tell things I can’t control.

    • Athena says:

      I’ll say this again. He has Maxwell in a NYC jail, the same Maxwell who told Virginia to service Andrew, the same Maxwell who is grinning in the background of Virginia’s picture with Andrew. Why is he not threatening to subpoena her.

  37. Feeshalori says:

    No one is leaving this woman in peace. Everyone has an angle to keep dragging Meghan into their business for their own purposes and it’s just reprehensible. She has nothing to with this. Stop bandying her name around and leaving her with the mess of trying to deal with the backlash.

    • Debbie says:

      A BIG “thank you” to Feeshalori, Athena and others on this site who have been the voices of reason on this topic. They’ve seen that dragging Meghan’s name into Andrew’s Scandal, and the British Royal Family’s Scandal just to get more media attention (when we all know that any attention from the British media will be about trying to make Meghan the villain in Andrew’s own scandal). Also, those suggesting that it’s ok to bandy Meghan’s name into this nonsense if it’ll help Virginia, Ha! (Nice of you to say it’s ok to use her, very telling). Those who want to help Virg., including her lawyer should look to Fergie, their kids, the Maxwell woman, and Andrew’s security details. If it’s tough to get them to testify, that’s TOUGH! It’s still your job as a lawyer to the job done. Leave Meghan out of your messes, she’s not responsible to bring down the BRF, Andrew or to allow her name to be used by any yahoo who wants attention. Someone up-thread said it just right, they’re trying to “sacrifice” Meghan for the sake of Virginia, just like the RF and RR “sacrificed” Meg while she lived in England to divert from their other scandals (like Rose, Charles, etc.)

  38. Over it says:

    Well if his mama who is backing him financially doesn’t know what he gets up to, why the heck would Megs who has known him all but 2 seconds

  39. tamsin says:

    Everyone wants to exploit this poor woman. Very few pictures of Meghan and Harry in the same shot, but he never looks friendly towards her and never faces her. The Sussexes are stuck sitting next to Andrew at official events because of the Order of Succession.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I agree Meghan has nothing to do with Andrew and probably NEVER wanted anything to do with Andrew. However, maybe the lawyer thinks it’s possible that Andrew was bragging/making admissions to the people around him because he really is THAT stupid/arrogant? Meghan deserves her peace, and Andrew’s victims deserve justice. This is when it becomes up to the judge to decide whether the lawyers have made a good enough case to justify having a subpoena issued. I don’t think they did. But I *kind of* see why they are trying.

  40. Hawaiimainland gymrat says:

    I think while the victim definitely deserves her justice against Andrew and others involve, I cannot and do not support the use of Megan. Her and her attorney cannot be blind to extra racist hate and harassment this will bring on her…that’s part of the reason they moved here to get away from that mess. Also as a POC… I’m not down to why they pick the only person of color in that family to want to dispose. I don’t care that she’s an American. It don’t make no sense for him not to want those try to dispose Fergie or one of his daughters or in other words someone obvious to the intricate inside. Regardless of international hoops to dispose people. I’m sorry but that just seems the attempt in using her as a pawn to strengthen his case for virginia, I don’t feel it’s worth the racial harassment she’s got coming…and trust me it will come, I’m sorry.

  41. Well Wisher says:

    The lawyer is looking for future clients. He wants to do well by his client. That is reasonable. Why Meghan? She is not a bargining chip. I am sure she can plead the fifth, for there is no way would she have been exposed to that side of Andrew’s alleged character.
    Just let people be, fight the case on its merits.
    He will not get to Epstein’s finances, because other rich people would not allow it, most likely the case will be settled but this is a bad tactic.

    • SomeChick says:

      Pleading the 5th has to do with avoiding self-incrimination. I agree with you that Meghan wouldn’t have any useful testimony in the case, which means that she has no need to plead the 5th. That is a specific way of refusing to answer questions. Fergie might plead the 5th (since marital privilege wouldn’t apply, as they were divorced when the events took place). Nothing exists to incriminate Meg.

  42. Jay says:

    Is it possible that Meghan is being used not only to draw attention to Virginia’s case against Andrew, but also as a bit of a bait and switch for other royal witnesses? For example, if someone in Andrew’s camp hopes that throwing Meghan in the mix would be fantastic for him, they might say something like “Of course, we hope anybody who is asked will speak truthfully and cooperate”, throwing her under the bus in the hopes of muddying the waters.

    They’re not likely to view Meghan as meriting their protection, unlike other members of Andrew’s family. But those same statements would ricochet back on them if they then tried to object to, say, Fergie or someone being deposed. Like, why would they support Meghan being deposed and not, you know, someone who actually knew Andrew during the time in question?

    Of course, I assume any experienced legal team would see through that play, but it might be worth a try.

    At the very least, if the British media want to run with it against Meghan, they’ll have to also bring up Andrew’s ongoing legal battle and connections to Maxwell, currently on trial for crimes committed with Epstein. More pressure, perhaps.

  43. HeatherC says:

    while everyone in the BRF was gaslighting, isolating, othering and briefing against Meghan….Andrew included….he just happened to sit down for a spot of tea with Meghan and dish all about how wonderful Pedo Island is as a vacation spot?

    Sure Jan.

  44. jodie says:

    Why would any lawyer think of calling a witness who had recently been described by a High court judge as “at best having an unfortunate lapse of memory?”

    • Shelley says:

      A lapse of memory over information that was conveniently erased from her phone?

    • equality says:

      Oh, jodie, you must be one of those people with an eidetic memory who never forget any little detail of thousands of messages sent while working a high profile job. It’s nice to be perfect and remember every detail of your life, huh jodie? I wish I were as perfect as you and the ones on SM who judge every little thing about somebody else’s life.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      @jodie, the actual quote was, “This was, at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part.”. You can be someone who speaks the truth and also forgets things.

      About a book being written/emailed about in 2018. A book not called Finding Freedom at that time.

      No matter, the Mail on Sunday, a publication that’s been around for a very long time, “shockingly” had a major lapse of memory. Along with Caroline Graham. Apparently, memory lapses from the DM and the embiggenly called journalists/writers is okay. People that should know and understand privacy & copyright laws. But still illegally printed things. And also only printed certain parts of texts/emails. Knowlngly. To obsfucate the truth. Is that okay to you, jodie? An ‘unfortunate memory lapse’ vs. a corporation, that has a legal department, that would know better than to illegally print things?

      Ultimately, this story is bogus. The Duchess of Sussex is not a ‘close assoiate’ of PA.

      • equality says:

        Not to mention it was one of MANY books being written about H&M. Between all the books and articles written, I’m sure there were many, many requests for statements but, you know, JK wouldn’t have volunteered that info or those messages.

  45. Tessa says:

    The logical one to call would be Fergie who goes around singing the praises of her ex husband.

  46. MipMip says:

    I think there’s a lot more at play under the surface than we are seeing. As in: I don’t *think* this is just Boies throwing Meghan’s name out there for general attention. He’s far too strategic for that. Yes, it’s crappy on the surface but he might actually be helping her in the long-run. Boies is no fool, he knows exactly what will happen if he says Meghan’s name in the press. And he didn’t say it in the NYT or WSJ, he went to a royal reporter- that’s important. He’s speaking TO the royal family here.

    Boies is either putting this out there because he knows that Andrew’s team is specifically planning to depose Meghan, as LaraW said above. Or, he just knows that the RF’s instinct will be to drag Meghan’s name into this in some way and he is heading them off by reminding them:

    1. Meghan tells the truth. That reminder alone could be enough to have them shaking in their boots. It doesn’t matter that she likely has no insight into VG’s case, she knows A LOT about how the RF act behind closed doors. Andrew is notoriously atrocious to everyone. Meghan just describing her few interactions with him probably won’t paint a pretty picture. She also very well could have heard someone make an offhand remark about Andrew’s legal troubles that, when recounted could just add to the ugly sketch of Andrew that Boies team will make. It could also provide them with a better case to depose someone in the UK if honest Meghan directly mentions them in her deposition. They know Meghan is litigious when she feels it’s right, they know she tells the truth, and they know she wins. Boies is reminding them of that too. I could be reading this all wrong, but his message here actually seems to be: don’t bring MM into this unless you want to lose.

    2. Boies could depose Andrew’s brother. I think that’s the real stealth message here. I think he means Edward, not Charles, and I thank that will also scare the RF. Charles, like the Queen, would be too hard to get to but Edward… Edward also has skeletons, Edward was just denied the DoE title, Edward knows things…. So what does he know? What does Boies know he knows? What would Edward be willing to say?

    This is cage rattling for sure but it’s sending a specific message. From what I know of Boies, he doesn’t just throw a bunch of crap at the wall and hope it sticks- that’s Andrew’s department. I think Boies went to Sykes as a preemptive warning.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      MipMip, this all sounds plausible. The problem is that the brf has not shown any ability to see farther than the end of their nose. We can only hope that A’s attorneys are able to convince them to back off of Meghan, because it will backfire in a spectacularly bad way. I don’t doubt that the Firm would love to use Meghan in some way to benefit them and harm her in this lawsuit.

      I also agree with the poster who said that it’s really unusual to give a deponent time to figure out a strategy to quash a possible subpoena. There’s a difference between the US and the UK. The Judge here simply needs to follow the law, and s/he won’t give a fig about the brf.

  47. Mel says:

    Dragging her in just for headlines. Disgusting.