Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Wagatha Christie" in English language version.
Ms Vardy ... said she regrets the interview and making those comments. She also alleged it included "a lot of things in there that didn't come out of my mouth, that were misrepresented."
First, it is highly likely that 'the Secret Wag' was a journalistic construct rather than a person. That being so, it is unsurprising, and provides no support for the allegation, that there are similarities between the attributes ascribed to the 'the Secret Wag' in the column and Ms Vardy. Secondly, the evidence connecting Ms Vardy to this column is thin. There is an email from the News Editor of the MailOnline in which he is asked for 'absolute confirmation that the Secret Wag is Rebekah' and responds 'Yeh, she is'. The author of the email has not given evidence. He did not work for the newspaper in which 'the Secret Wag' column was published, and his email discloses no basis for his assertion.
Cases of libel in the High Court are rare, said Athalie Matthews, a lawyer for Farrer & Co. who specializes in defamation, adding that lawyers often advise against it. "Not only is the financial cost of taking a case to court huge, but the reputational cost can also be enormous, whether the claimant wins or loses."
She did not quite say in court that the story was "made up", but rather said she was "forced into a situation by my ex-husband to do this [interview about Andre]."
The 1722 legal ruling set a precedent that if the court can tell that evidence is missing, then the assumption should be that what is missing is of the highest possible value that would fit. Rooney's lawyers argue this approach applies just as much in a case of missing WhatsApp messages sent by a footballer's wife as it does in a case involving a missing gem in a piece of 18th-century jewellery.
Their two-week trial in London in May received international media coverage. ... Rooney accused Vardy of being a significant contributor to The Secret Wag column published by The Sun on Sunday in 2019. The judge said the short-lived column seemed more 'a journalistic construct' and the evidence linking it to Vardy was 'thin'.
Cases of libel in the High Court are rare, said Athalie Matthews, a lawyer for Farrer & Co. who specializes in defamation, adding that lawyers often advise against it. "Not only is the financial cost of taking a case to court huge, but the reputational cost can also be enormous, whether the claimant wins or loses."
The 1722 legal ruling set a precedent that if the court can tell that evidence is missing, then the assumption should be that what is missing is of the highest possible value that would fit. Rooney's lawyers argue this approach applies just as much in a case of missing WhatsApp messages sent by a footballer's wife as it does in a case involving a missing gem in a piece of 18th-century jewellery.
She did not quite say in court that the story was "made up", but rather said she was "forced into a situation by my ex-husband to do this [interview about Andre]."
Ms Vardy ... said she regrets the interview and making those comments. She also alleged it included "a lot of things in there that didn't come out of my mouth, that were misrepresented."
Their two-week trial in London in May received international media coverage. ... Rooney accused Vardy of being a significant contributor to The Secret Wag column published by The Sun on Sunday in 2019. The judge said the short-lived column seemed more 'a journalistic construct' and the evidence linking it to Vardy was 'thin'.
First, it is highly likely that 'the Secret Wag' was a journalistic construct rather than a person. That being so, it is unsurprising, and provides no support for the allegation, that there are similarities between the attributes ascribed to the 'the Secret Wag' in the column and Ms Vardy. Secondly, the evidence connecting Ms Vardy to this column is thin. There is an email from the News Editor of the MailOnline in which he is asked for 'absolute confirmation that the Secret Wag is Rebekah' and responds 'Yeh, she is'. The author of the email has not given evidence. He did not work for the newspaper in which 'the Secret Wag' column was published, and his email discloses no basis for his assertion.
