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

[Reigntax]

57 minutes ago, ezzra said:

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?...

Not many ordinary people have 20 million followers.

[Dukeleto]

Imagine for a second if Mr. Unsworth didnt live in Thailand and thus wasnt one of the first to respond and thus wasnt involved at all. None of this would have happened! Musks offer to help may have been accepted or rejected politely by another person resulting in the very likelyhood of none of this ever happening. That in itself tells me who was wrong to begin with or has everyone forgotten who threw the first stone?

[TheFishman1]

He just trying to get millions of dollars 

[Shiver]

2 hours ago, Matzzon said:

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.

Do you mean move on pedo's? ???? Of course, pedo doesn't necessarily mean what many assume it to be.  There was a pediatrician in UK some time back had bricks through his window because people misunderstood his job.

[MarcB]

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

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.

Hahahaaa

You "Sir" are obviously not a legal scholar yourself.

"Double Jeopardy" is documented in Magna Carta.
Meaning, when new evidence is brought forward, there could be a retrial.

The comment" There will be no retrial if the lawyer failed to communicate the case" is spot on!!

Edited December 9, 2019 by MarcB

[fvw53]

1 hour ago, MarcB said:

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

Vern is more a victim of the lawyers (vultures) smelling a big deal for themselves

[Classic Ray]

Four points:

1. People listen, however mistakenly, to Musk, who is a globally known businessman and entrepreneur.

2. Ordinary people suffer greatly from accusations of paedophilia, many cases in UK even of a paediatrician being targetted for abuse by mistake. (see Shiver's post above).

3. The amount of damages will be determined by the judge in the event that the allegation is proven, not by the amount claimed.  

4. If there has been a miscarriage of justice by wrong jury direction, there should be a retrial.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Classic Ray

[AsianAtHeart]

Let's get this straight once and for all: The "pedo guy" Vern Unsworth is NOT a "Brit diver."

[Papafarang]

The general consensus is that the mini sub was to big to get through the cave system so that was a big PR stunt by musk

if it was used and got stuck. The outcome would of been a lot different 

[Sticky Wicket]

1 hour ago, leeneeds said:

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

There is a difference between name calling and inferring paedophilia! 

That shìt sticks!

[AsianAtHeart]

Just now, Papafarang said:

The general consensus is that the mini sub was to big to get through the cave system so that was a big PR stunt by musk

if it was used and got stuck. The outcome would of been a lot different 

Musk's team was manufacturing that sub at the behest of cave rescuers who were advising him as to the requirements for it.  I think they, more than anyone, were disappointed when they  tested it, only to find there was one particularly tight bend that it could not pass.  Musk was not doing this for PR, he was doing it per their request--of the goodness of his heart, just as all the rest of the world were doing at that moment to try to help in saving those children.  Yes, it is a fact that the sub turned out to be too big.  However, it could not have been much smaller and still accommodate the kids and their coach.  It was the smallest sub of its type in the world at the time.

[AsianAtHeart]

8 minutes ago, Sticky Wicket said:

There is a difference between name calling and inferring paedophilia! 

That shìt sticks!

Considering as Mr. Vernon Unsworth had told Musk where to shove his sub that was sent in to help save the children, perhaps some would make a case for saying that, so far from pedophilia, Musk was alluding to pedocide.  Those children were doomed if they were not helped out of the cave.

[kiwikeith]

3 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 ?

The way I see it ,Musks lawyer pronounced Musks guiltiness, by saying that when people are angry they say things they do not mean, it was only a joke.

So that precedent says, I could insult people I would not dare to name-- out loudly and get away with it as it was just a joke.

The big joke is that more than likely a brown paper bag decided the verdict for the jury. 

[paulbrow]

I fail to see how this is anything except double jeopardy... unlike Thailand, once the jury or court rules innocent, the defendant cannot be retried for the same thing.

[paulbrow]

9 minutes ago, kiwikeith said:

The way I see it ,Musks lawyer pronounced Musks guiltiness, by saying that when people are angry they say things they do not mean, it was only a joke.

So that precedent says, I could insult people I would not dare to name-- out loudly and get away with it as it was just a joke.

The big joke is that more than likely a brown paper bag decided the verdict for the jury. 

I hardly believe Mr. Musk would risk jury tampering charges over such an event.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

2 hours 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.

 

I suspect that since the lawyers got ahold of the case, on a contingency basis, Vern has just been along for the ride. 

 

For even the outside chance of a typical 25-40% contingency fee on an award this big, the lawyers will ride this pony until they're dead.  And I'd bet dollars to donuts that there are clauses in Vern's attorneys agreements that prevent him from calling a halt even if he wanted to.

 

If they make themselves pesky and time consuming enough, Musk may even decide to settle just to make it go away.  And then the lawyers have won.   Hopefully, Musk is in it now on principal, to stick it in the eye of the attorneys for demanding such a ridiculous amount.  And I hope he counter-sues to get his legal expenses paid, (by Vern's attorneys, not by Vern himself).

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by impulse

[Matzzon]

43 minutes ago, Shiver said:

Do you mean move on pedo's? ???? Of course, pedo doesn't necessarily mean what many assume it to be.  There was a pediatrician in UK some time back had bricks through his window because people misunderstood his job.

No, I mean that the two persons in this story are acting like children.

 

Regarding the pediatrician. Think about that it was in the UK, the land where most things are severely misunderstood.

[kiwikeith]

3 minutes ago, paulbrow said:

I hardly believe Mr. Musk would risk jury tampering charges over such an event.

There is a lot of people in this world in very high places, that do not deserve to called Mr.

And musk can be taken to a retrial  on appeal . 

[hotchilli]

4 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.

Give it up... the chance has gone!

[BestB]

4 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 ?

Yes, because you are not implicating them directly. How readers interpret what they read is individually based on their perceptions , education and expectations .

 

one sentence can have 100 different meanings to 100 different people 

[digibum]

Here is Vern’s problem:

 

Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbid libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be patently false.

 

Sorry, on my phone so can’t quote format that but nobody believes Musk was saying he was an actual pedophile.  
 

If you’re on some social media and call someone retarded that doesn’t mean people think you believe the person has an actual medical condition of mental retardation.  
 

Now, if Musk has said, “Vern has been convicted for pedophilia” that’s very different because Musk is now making a statement of fact which he knows to be untrue and it is easy to argue that his intent was to damage Vern’s reputation.

 

Congressman Nunes is fighting a similar uphill battle trying to sue a parody Twitter account “David Nunes’ Cow” as nobody believes a cow is actually posting Twitter updates.  

[mickey rat]

Good thing he did not call him a jackass! 

[OneMoreFarang]

Maybe someone from California can answer this in a few lines:

Are the names of the jury members public in California and/or should it be easy for a rich guy to get this information?

The way Musk behaves I understand that people don't want to upset him and maybe that was part of why he got away with this.

Personally I would be careful about upsetting the richest guy in the neighborhood.

[IAMHERE]

35 minutes ago, kiwikeith said:

The big joke is that more than likely a brown paper bag decided the verdict for the jury. 

That is getting close to libel. Those jurors were all honest and true. 

[brian2f2f]

3 hours 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.

He lost it already. He has gone from a diving child rescurer to a childish little boy just trying to get money out of people. His lawyer is making himself look stupid too. Since its clear that elon had no direct intension to make him look bad. Which is needed for deffimation. 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, IAMHERE said:

38 minutes ago, kiwikeith said:

The big joke is that more than likely a brown paper bag decided the verdict for the jury. 

That is getting close to libel. Those jurors were all honest and true. 

That's almost funny.

It's ok to call a guy a pedo but it's close to libel to mention brown paper bags...

[DJ54]

4 hours ago, sanemax said:

So, you can say anything about anyone

 

Might be one of those fine lines......

 

Both of them should throw in the towel and not drag through

court again...  Elion reach in his bag throw out $250,000.00

and forget about it.....

 

or take a risk trial trial by judge.....

 

iMO the 145 million was an insane amount to ask for....did

some reading how’s these cases end up.... don’t think any

were close the going price....

[timewilltell]

It is obviously defamation as Musk continued to stand by his Tweeted communications after the event and in the ensuing media attention it garnered. I do not recall a redaction by Musk and calling someone a 'pedo' is not something insignificant - especially someone who lives in Thailand given it's reputation for accommodating people of that type. However, damages are sadly calculated on financial loss based on standing and reputation (wrongly calculated in that way in my opinion as a rich person can defame a poor person with very little risk to his finances whereas a poor person who defames a rich person faces ruin - the law saould be based on equivalency and needs challenge). Because of this any damages were likely to be very limited.

 

I am sure the damages claimed in the case did not come out of the mind of the Plaintiff but rather his legal team.

 

[MarcB]

4 minutes ago, DJ54 said:

Elion reach in his bag throw out $250,000.00

and forget about it.....

 

 

Euh.... how exactly did you calculate that number?

And for what? For an insult in response to an insult?

3 minutes ago, timewilltell said:

 especially someone who lives in Thailand given it's reputation for accommodating people of that type

 

If he called Vern an idiot... i would not really think he's indeed an idiot, and that is what the jury agreed on.

 

Now, your statement above is general and nears defamation to both thailand and the people being there..

 

 

[Millcx]

3 hours 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!

And let that scumbeg Musk do what he wants .... Nah ... Go get him and hit him where it hursts ... It’s another OJ Simpson travesty