Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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 .

Edited by nobodysfriend
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 ta

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 on

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 wi

Posted Images

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. 

Edited by SkyFax
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ... 🤔

  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...