All the times Prince Harry’s evidence was contradicted during Daily Mail trial

>Ms Griffiths confirmed she had indeed obtained the story from one of the bride’s friends, but the Duke continued to insist in court: “We have no confirmation of that … my social circles were not leaky.”

>He was clearly irritated that his exchange with Mr Inskip – which undermined his main line of attack – had been submitted to the court, complaining to the judge that he was “strangely forced to hand [it] over completely unredacted though it was deemed irrelevant”.

Harry getting irritated on being forced to hand over the proof of his own lies, lmaooo!

Is he actually delusional?

If Harry’s fans stopped being emotional and quit using the “hacking is so terrible” angle, the verdict was the right call. Of course the hacking was terrible, but this trial was done in the court of law, not public opinion where Harry’s lies always find their target audience because people tend to be emotional and just react based on Harry’s words instead of reading the details that have been published about the trial for a while now. 

The evidence and cross-examination really exposed Harry’s side and the weakness of his claims. When his lawyers had to bring up Kate’s name in a sad attempt to bolster Harry’s claim, you know they’ve lost already. His case couldn’t even stand up on its own and had to cite Kate’s hacking because Kate was actually hacked more times than Harry ever was and there was very strong evidence for that. The same couldn’t be said for Harry. His case was weak. The judge has warned him his case was weak. His lawyers were told their arguments were weak. He’s lost other claims already because there just wasn’t enough evidence. And now he’s also shown to be guilty of perjury.