Harry has essentially admitted that the article were true. His contention is that there were no legal means for the media to have obtained that info. Therefore, since they had the correct info, they had to have obtained it illegally.
The barrister for the Mirror has shown that some articles the info came from interviews Harry had given, or articles printed elsewhere, or have suggested other ways info could have been obtained, such as the chef or somebody else in the restaurant calling a pap and telling them where Harry was.
Neither side is going to be able to produce hard evidence. The articles were written so many years ago, the reporter may no longer have their notes or remember who their source was, not that they would reveal the source if they did remember.
Most of the articles written about Harry's testimony have been written by people with no legal expertise and who wish to see Harry taken down. These same people told us that Meghan would lose her case. She didn't.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't run out and splurge on champagne to celebrate Harry's loss because this case is not the slam dunk that reporters are claiming it is.
188
