You should remember:  It's 20% of what happens to you, 80% how you handle it. 

45 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Did the lawyers drop the ball in how they presented this case? Most of the discussion seems to have been limited to the pedo-guy comment, the meaning and context of it, and whether Musk meant it literally. Taken in isolation it'd be easy for the defence team to argue for the lawsuit to be dismissed, especially with Musk's apology, both in July last year and in court. 

 

Rather than debating on this single insult, the jurors should have been given right at the outset the whole succession of comments to deliberate on with equal weight. This could have been presented as a simple list, with everything from pedo-guy to child bride, married her at 12, child rapist, "betya a signed dollar it's true" and his provocation to sue if it wasn't. It's these subsequent comments (as well as his attempt to get a PI to uncover dirt on Unsworth) that go way further than playground insults, and indicate a malicious attempt to smear a man's character.

 

If such evidence had been properly put to the jury at the beginning it'd surely have been incontrovertible, and it'd be hard to conclude anything other than that Musk's apologies and excuses were completely insincere. 

However what is suggested above would go against the judge's procedural rulings:

 

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

 

35 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

However what is suggested above would go against the judge's procedural rulings:

 

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

 

From the article:

 

"Two days later, Musk lashed out at Unsworth in a series of tweets, including one which called him a “pedo guy.” Musk later apologized for that comment.

 

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."

 

If (as this suggests) the judge was refusing to allow Musk's subsequent comments to be heard and was limiting the hearing to the original comment only, the whole thing is a farce. Why on earth was the following allowed to be discluded? 

 

" On Monday, the judge refused a defense request to reverse a decision allowing Unsworth’s attorneys to introduce an email Musk sent to the news website BuzzFeed in which Musk chided a reporter there to “stop defending child rapists.”"

 

3 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

From the article:

 

"Two days later, Musk lashed out at Unsworth in a series of tweets, including one which called him a “pedo guy.” Musk later apologized for that comment.

 

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."

 

If (as this suggests) the judge was refusing to allow Musk's subsequent comments to be heard and was limiting the hearing to the original comment only, the whole thing is a farce. Why on earth was the following allowed to be discluded? 

 

" On Monday, the judge refused a defense request to reverse a decision allowing Unsworth’s attorneys to introduce an email Musk sent to the news website BuzzFeed in which Musk chided a reporter there to “stop defending child rapists.”"

 

Why in earth? The judge had previously denied multiple motions by the Musk defense team to have the case thrown out in its entirety. The judge then I guess decided that he was going to proceed with a 4 day trial and not a 4 week trial.

14 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

Why in earth? The judge had previously denied multiple motions by the Musk defense team to have the case thrown out in its entirety. The judge then I guess decided that he was going to proceed with a 4 day trial and not a 4 week trial.

If anything, allowing presentation of the full evidence would have considerably shortened the trial, since the meaning of the full set of comments was so unambiguous. Discluding this evidence paved the way for the defence to make the playground insult argument, which would never have stood up if the rest of Musk's comments had been heard. 

25 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

If anything, allowing presentation of the full evidence would have considerably shortened the trial, since the meaning of the full set of comments was so unambiguous. Discluding this evidence paved the way for the defence to make the playground insult argument, which would never have stood up if the rest of Musk's comments had been heard. 

Mr. Unsworth's UK attorney/solicitor is Mark Stephens at Howard-Kennedy. Maybe you could contact him and advise as to how to petition for a retrial.

8 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

Mr. Unsworth's UK attorney/solicitor is Mark Stephens at Howard-Kennedy. Maybe you could contact him and advise as to how to petition for a retrial.

He's already said he'll file papers  for a retrial before Christmas:

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/elon-musk-face-re-trial-winning-defamation-case-british-diver-11409022/

2 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

He's already said he'll file papers  for a retrial before Christmas:

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/elon-musk-face-re-trial-winning-defamation-case-british-diver-11409022/

Yes and often there is a petition for a mistrial because the jury did not follow the judge's jury instructions. It seems here that Solicitor Stephens wants to file for a mistrial because the jury DID follow the judge's jury instructions.

3 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

From the article:

 

"Two days later, Musk lashed out at Unsworth in a series of tweets, including one which called him a “pedo guy.” Musk later apologized for that comment.

 

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."

 

If (as this suggests) the judge was refusing to allow Musk's subsequent comments to be heard and was limiting the hearing to the original comment only, the whole thing is a farce. Why on earth was the following allowed to be discluded? 

 

" On Monday, the judge refused a defense request to reverse a decision allowing Unsworth’s attorneys to introduce an email Musk sent to the news website BuzzFeed in which Musk chided a reporter there to “stop defending child rapists.”"

 

Probably because it was said in a Private Email and not publicly by Musk as the original Tweet was.

18 hours ago, canopy said:

Amazing how many people don't yet know the truth. I hate to be the one to tell you, but Elon consulted the cave experts in Thailand from day one. The experts immediately dismissed Elon's idea known as the the bouncy castle approach--a flexible tube pumped up with air and the kids would crawl all the way out on their own. The cave experts on the ground in Thailand instead encouraged Elon to develop the sub system and they gave Elon precise details of inside the cave and the requirements of the passages. Richard Stanton, one of the two divers who found the kids, was instrumental in the design of the sub. When he talked, Elon listened and several types of subs were made. The one below was for the tightest part known as the choke point. The subs were designed, built, tested, and delivered in mind boggling time by many experts from all walks of life and even non-Elon companies. Everyone just wanted to help save the kids in any way they could. While several of the subs did arrive shortly before the kids were rescued, the rescue time window was closing and the gears of rescue were already turning. There was no turning back, no chance of a U turn to a different strategy. Quite simply, the ship had already left the harbor.

 

Another thing people don't seem to know anything about which is also incredible. The system the rescuers committed to was extremely dangerous and the probability of survival was low. When they went to put the mask on the smallest kid it didn't fit or seal because his head was too small. All the kids were knocked out by doctors who signed diplomatic immunity agreements. The kids were bound to stretchers and dragged around like rag dolls through murky turbulent currents and jagged rocks underwater. Rescuers had no idea if the kids were alive or corpses as they moved them along. But a testament to their skill and courage the experts got all the kids out despite some very close calls. And keep in mind one rescuer paid with his life. After the rescue everyone in the world was thankful and relieved, save for one person who threw a pack of lies and insults out on CNN saying Elon had no idea of anything about the cave and only offered a rigid sub yada yada yada. Does that look rigid to anyone? Judge the truth for yourself, the emails from Richard Stanton, the photos of the subs that came before the rescue, not Vern's grotesque words of slander after the fact.

 

 

Ah. Finally. An intelligent, thoughtful, informed post. Thank you. 

42 minutes ago, monkfish said:

Probably because it was said in a Private Email and not publicly by Musk as the original Tweet was.

Exactly. Unsworth's lawyers of course wanted the private emails as primary evidence, but the judge quite rightly denied the request.

 

However, contrary to posters' ignorant assertions here, the jurors WERE given the emails and they DID see them. But they were instructed, again rightly, they couldn't consider them for their decision on the public tweets, on which hinged the case for defamation. They were to be considered as evidence of Musk's state of mind. I don't know what they concluded about his state of mind, but I imagine it was at least that Musk was indeed angry, as he'd said.

18 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Exactly. Unsworth's lawyers of course wanted the private emails as primary evidence, but the judge quite rightly denied the request.

 

However, contrary to posters' ignorant assertions here, the jurors WERE given the emails and they DID see them. But they were instructed, again rightly, they couldn't consider them for their decision on the public tweets, on which hinged the case for defamation. They were to be considered as evidence of Musk's state of mind. I don't know what they concluded about his state of mind, but I imagine it was at least that Musk was indeed angry, as he'd said.

Yes of course it's only common sense I was saying that months ago probably the Media were baiting Musk to get him to say something whilst he was still angry it was the press that contacted him after all.
Yea when I saw Unsworth's interview I was angry too.

20 hours ago, canopy said:

Amazing how many people don't yet know the truth. I hate to be the one to tell you, but Elon consulted the cave experts in Thailand from day one. The experts immediately dismissed Elon's idea known as the the bouncy castle approach--a flexible tube pumped up with air and the kids would crawl all the way out on their own. The cave experts on the ground in Thailand instead encouraged Elon to develop the sub system and they gave Elon precise details of inside the cave and the requirements of the passages. Richard Stanton, one of the two divers who found the kids, was instrumental in the design of the sub. When he talked, Elon listened and several types of subs were made. The one below was for the tightest part known as the choke point. The subs were designed, built, tested, and delivered in mind boggling time by many experts from all walks of life and even non-Elon companies. Everyone just wanted to help save the kids in any way they could. While several of the subs did arrive shortly before the kids were rescued, the rescue time window was closing and the gears of rescue were already turning. There was no turning back, no chance of a U turn to a different strategy. Quite simply, the ship had already left the harbor.

 

Another thing people don't seem to know anything about which is also incredible. The system the rescuers committed to was extremely dangerous and the probability of survival was low. When they went to put the mask on the smallest kid it didn't fit or seal because his head was too small. All the kids were knocked out by doctors who signed diplomatic immunity agreements. The kids were bound to stretchers and dragged around like rag dolls through murky turbulent currents and jagged rocks underwater. Rescuers had no idea if the kids were alive or corpses as they moved them along. But a testament to their skill and courage the experts got all the kids out despite some very close calls. And keep in mind one rescuer paid with his life. After the rescue everyone in the world was thankful and relieved, save for one person who threw a pack of lies and insults out on CNN saying Elon had no idea of anything about the cave and only offered a rigid sub yada yada yada. Does that look rigid to anyone? Judge the truth for yourself, the emails from Richard Stanton, the photos of the subs that came before the rescue, not Vern's grotesque words of slander after the fact.

 

 

All this "truth" was not widely reported. So it's not amazing that most people are unaware of it. Where did you get all the detail?