Elon Musk could face defamation retrial as Brit diver's lawyer claims jury blundered

[webfact]

Elon Musk could face defamation retrial as Brit diver's lawyer claims jury blundered

EXCLUSIVE: The Tesla founder had a spat with diver Vernon Unsworth over the rescue of 12 boys trapped in a flooded Thai cave in June 2018

By Alan Selby

 

The Tesla founder had a spat with diver Vernon Unsworth over the rescue of 12 boys trapped in a flooded Thai cave in June 2018 (Image: AFC / SplashNews.com)

 

Elon Musk could face a retrial in his defamation case after a lawyer for the Brit he branded “pedo guy” claimed the jury blundered.

 

The Tesla founder had a spat with diver Vernon Unsworth over the rescue of 12 boys trapped in a flooded Thai cave in June 2018.

 

Mr Unsworth made a claim for £145million in damages but Mr Musk was cleared on Friday.

 

Now the 64-year-old’s lawyer, Mark Stephens, claims post-verdict interviews with jurors show they decided the tycoon was not liable because he did not name Mr Unsworth in his tweet.

 

He claims they made a mistake that could set a dangerous precedent. Mr Stephens said: “We all know jurors make mistakes on occasion.

 

Full story: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/elon-musk-could-face-defamation-21047489

 

-- Mirror 2019-12-09

[sanemax]

27 minutes ago, webfact said:

Now the 64-year-old’s lawyer, Mark Stephens, claims post-verdict interviews with jurors show they decided the tycoon was not liable because he did not name Mr Unsworth in his tweet.

It was quite clear and obvious that Musk was referring to Vern .

So, you can say anything about anyone as long as you dont directly say their name when its quite clear and obvious that you are talking to or about them ?

[SkyFax]

Maybe Mr. Stephens would be better in calling the judge's jury instructions the 'blunder' as the jury instructions used were those standard in a California defamation trial and the jury was following those instructions.

 

There were lengthy pre-trial motions by both sides as to what should be the eventual jury instructions in use.

[pookiki]

I think Mr. Mark Stephen's, Esq. better come to grip with defamation laws as they exist in the USA. One of the key issues was that Unsworth had not shown any tangible damages - on the contrary - no one paid any attention to Musk's comments and Unsworth's reputation remained unsullied.  Let it be!

[z42]

16 minutes ago, pookiki said:

I think Mr. Mark Stephen's, Esq. better come to grip with defamation laws as they exist in the USA. One of the key issues was that Unsworth had not shown any tangible damages - on the contrary - no one paid any attention to Musk's comments and Unsworth's reputation remained unsullied.  Let it be!

Absolutely right. It's gone too far already. Going for such absurdly high damages payments has tarnished Unsworth's rep much more than any tweet would have.

 

Now is the time to walk away with dignity fully intact.

[Matzzon]

Another neverending story. Move on children! A little bit longer with this story and it might be time to created super toys like Baby Elon and Baby Unsworth.

 

Then there is the failing cute factor, of course.

[lamyai3]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Now the 64-year-old’s lawyer, Mark Stephens, claims post-verdict interviews with jurors show they decided the tycoon was not liable because he did not name Mr Unsworth in his tweet.

If Musk got off on this technicality, then the law truly is an ass. There was a succession of tweets and emails, interspersed by mass media coverage all of which referenced Unsworth by name - it was these news reports that Musk was responding to in his follow up comments, which included an accusation of "child rapist". There was zero possibility that Musk was talking about anyone else, and with his full set of tweets and emails, zero chance that he didn't mean what he wrote.

 

[leeneeds]

Name calling, really we have become so sensitive where money can be claimed as a payment, too right a slight.

[MasterBaker]

i could understand that Brit will need to pay legal fees one way or another

[SkyFax]

15 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

If Musk got off on this technicality, then the law truly is an ass. There was a succession of tweets and emails, interspersed by mass media coverage all of which referenced Unsworth by name - it was these news reports that Musk was responding to in his follow up comments, which included an accusation of "child rapist". There was zero possibility that Musk was talking about anyone else, and with his full set of tweets and emails, zero chance that he didn't mean what he wrote.

 

The judge's initial instructions to the jury:

 

The judge explained the case hinges on whether a reasonable person would take Musk’s Twitter statement to mean that he was calling Unsworth a pedophile.

To win the defamation case, Unsworth needs to show that Musk was negligent in publishing a falsehood that clearly identified the plaintiff and caused him harm.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-musk-lawsuit/elon-musks-jury-to-be-queried-on-opinions-of-billionaires-visitors-to-thailand-idUSKBN1Y70B3

 

NB the words "clearly identified" and "Twitter statement"

 

[LomSak27]

Just now, lamyai3 said:

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Now the 64-year-old’s lawyer, Mark Stephens, claims post-verdict interviews with jurors show they decided the tycoon was not liable because he did not name Mr Unsworth in his tweet.

If Musk got off on this technicality, then the law truly is an ass. There was a succession of tweets and emails, interspersed by mass media coverage all of which referenced Unsworth by name - it was these news reports that Musk was responding to in his follow up comments, which included an accusation of "child rapist". There was zero possibility that Musk was talking about anyone else, and with his full set of tweets and emails, zero chance that he didn't mean what he wrote.

You are believing what a lawyer has stated. Never do that. These are the people who invented fake news.

 

Quote

Mr Unsworth made a claim for £145million in damages but Mr Musk was cleared on Friday.

This is the real reason he lost. And you notice how the Thai papers failed to mention that fact BTW - how much he was asking in damages.  I may dislike Elon but what do I think of Vern? No sympathy for the tyke scammer. Ho Ho Ho

 

 

[ezzra]

I wonder whether this defamation case would happen altogether had Mr. Musk was an ordinary person and not a billionaire? or that Mr. Unsworth pride were hurts as much had he knew there is no money to be had here?...

[MarcB]

Let Vern play it out.
And maybe start another trial in the UK, which will as easily be in favor of Musk.

My opinion, not so smart of Vern when Musk sues for lost time and spent costs.

I might see Vern having to sell his house....

If he's smart, he goes home now and have a beer

[lamyai3]

15 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

NB the words "clearly identified" and "Twitter statement"

As I just replied to you in the other thread, the two things taken together make the case unwinnable. It's the succession of tweets that are damning and obviously identify Unsworth, not the initial one which in isolation could easily be argued as inconclusive. By disallowing the full set of evidence the judge has made a mockery of the whole thing. 

[Time Traveller]

Sounds like his lawyer just found another way to scam more money in lawyer fees out of poor ol' Vern.

 

[nobodysfriend]

Insanely high damages claimed by Mr. Unsworth ... Why not just 1 million or so ?

If my reputation would be worth 190 millions , I would have lost it a long time ago , not care about anyway .

[SkyFax]

12 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

As I just replied to you in the other thread, the two things taken together make the case unwinnable. It's the succession of tweets that are damning and obviously identify Unsworth, not the initial one which in isolation could easily be argued as inconclusive. By disallowing the full set of evidence the judge has made a mockery of the whole thing. 

This was the procedural ruling of the judge and as agreed to by both plaintiff and defense counsel at the outset. 

[Youlike]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

It was quite clear and obvious that Musk was referring to Vern .

So, you can say anything about anyone as long as you dont directly say their name when its quite clear and obvious that you are talking to or about them ?

It's also quite clear that the Brit only is after big money, hence his claim of 190 million us$....i have no respect for this guy anymore.

[sanemax]

9 minutes ago, Youlike said:

It's also quite clear that the Brit only is after big money, hence his claim of 190 million us$....i have no respect for this guy anymore.

How much would he have had to claim for you to keep your respect for him ?

[ttrd]

1 hour ago, z42 said:

Absolutely right. It's gone too far already. Going for such absurdly high damages payments has tarnished Unsworth's rep much more than any tweet would have.

 

Now is the time to walk away with dignity fully intact.

Hmm, Unsworth is the only one who still lives in the quarrel and that long after it ended. Now he tops it with greed and this he managed on his own - Do we see signs of attention urge ... ????

[lamyai3]

7 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

This was the procedural ruling of the judge and as agreed to by both plaintiff and defense counsel at the outset. 

Surely then the prosecution should never have pursued the case beyond that point if they were so straitjacketed in the evidence they were allowed to present to the jury. 

[lamyai3]

9 minutes ago, Youlike said:

It's also quite clear that the Brit only is after big money, hence his claim of 190 million us$....i have no respect for this guy anymore.

This was the prosecuting lawyer's gameplay, not Unsworth's. I agree the amount is absurd and would have worked against him getting a fair hearing. 

[Youlike]

10 minutes ago, sanemax said:

How much would he have had to claim for you to keep your respect for him ?

No money at all! Just clear his name.

[SkyFax]

3 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Surely then the prosecution should never have pursued the case beyond that point if they were so straitjacketed in the evidence they were allowed to present to the jury. 

Obviously Counselor Lin Wood and Team-Unsworth did not consider that to be the case.

[canuckamuck]

 You don't get do-overs when your lawyer failed to communicate the case.

[Dukeleto]

The headline shoumd probably read something like this:

"Elon Musk could face defamation retrial as Brit diver's lawyer fears he blundered in doing the case pro bono and needs to recoup his losses"

[Dukeleto]

15 minutes ago, Youlike said:

It's also quite clear that the Brit only is after big money, hence his claim of 190 million us$....i have no respect for this guy anymore.

Indeed. 

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

 You don't get do-overs when your lawyer failed to communicate the case.

Obviously you sir  are not a legal scholar. The "I call a mulligan " legal maneuver is well documented im Magna carta, and the writings of Erroneous the great.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, MasterBaker said:

i could understand that Brit will need to pay legal fees one way or another

Doubt there will be any legal fees, it was a no win, no fee action.

The legal firm would have been paid by 50% of any win, which is probably why the claim amount was so much.

[lamyai3]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

 You don't get do-overs when your lawyer failed to communicate the case.

It really sounds like they did fail to communicate it - the whole case is simple enough to summarise and could be put to the jury in a single short paragraph. This ought to have removed all need for technical arguments about what "pedo-guy" was supposed to mean, since Musk spelt it out with his follow up tweets and emails.