• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Psychic Sally morgan caught cheating?

Well, someone screwed up.

The Daily Mail has agreed to pay TV psychic Sally Morgan substantial damages as well as legal costs over a 2011 story which accused her of being a charlatan.

The settlement comes ahead of an expected libel trial in the long-running case.

Her solicitor Graham Atkins read out a statement at the High Court this morning outlining the terms of the agreed settlement.
Click to expand...
 
More details here.

"The allegation contained in the article that Mrs Morgan cheated the audience in Dublin is completely false and defamatory of her, " he told Mr Justice Tugendhat.

"It also caused enormous distress to Mrs Morgan, who decided, given the newspaper's initial defence of the article, that she had no choice but to commence legal proceedings against the publisher of the Daily Mail."

The solicitor Brid Jordan appeared on behalf of the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, and apologised unreservedly for the hidden earpiece claim "which it accepts is untrue".
Click to expand...


Looks like the problem was that there was no evidence that she was specifically using an earpiece in this performance. The fact that she has no proven psychic abilities doesn't appear to be relevant.


ETA: And, I told you so. ;)
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
ETA: And, I told you so. ;)
Click to expand...
So did I.

Pixel42 said:
The question is not whether Morgan did or did not use a microphone, it's whether she can or cannot do what she claims to be able to do. Even if she doesn't deliberately cheat and has convinced not only her audiences but herself of her ability to contact the dead, the likeliest explanation is still the usual cold reading/Forer Effect/confirmation bias.

My fear is that she will win her libel case because deliberate cheating can't be proven, and this will be touted both by her and the media as proof that she is a genuine psychic when it is not.
Click to expand...

Sigh.
 
Jack of Kent tweets:
Stripped of its "psychic" paraphernalia, this was a libel case where fraud was alleged but then could not be proved.

To allege fraud requires evidence of wrongful intention - and without such proof of a state of mind, then there is no defence.

I would not call Sally Morgan a fraud. I would just say she claims to talk to dead people so to financially profit from bereaved relatives.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Does this mean we're going to have to put up with her smug fat little face on Breakfast Television telling everyone how she was taken to court for fraud and the case was dropped and seetled by the other party? She'll be using this for decades to 'prove' she can talk to the dead.

I can't stand it. I'm going to find me a wee desert island in the middle of nowhere and go and live there for the rest of my life.
 
I don’t feel any sympathy for the poor Daily Mail – even though as noted elsewhere they may also face high legal costs. They can afford it. What is entertaining is that the first time in recorded history that they are alleged to have told something approaching the truth, they get hacked for libel! As someone once said, it’s not lies which are the problem: the problem is that the truth is the most libellous of all.

As we are all aware, Sally Morgan will now use this as “proof” of her “psychic abilities” and thus draw in more gullible punters. Indeed, many people who had never heard of her will now go seeking her out.

Incidentally, is she going to sue other newspapers which also ran the story? Until one stands up to her, she stands to collect millions. The recent fake bomb detector trial may give hope though.

Note: she hasn't actually won the legal argument, it's just that the defendants paid up rather than fight the action. It’s always cheaper to pay up than to risk expensive legal proceedings.

Is she now going to take on the MDC?
 
Last edited:
Sally accepts her act is ‘for entertainment’ only– she does not refuse to make this disclaimer.

The start and/or end of her performances clearly state that what she does is ‘entertainment’ – in other words a trick (or cheat). So how can she object to the suggestion of trickery when she, however begrudgingly, admits that her performance is just an act?

I am told that a woman will be cut in half. I am shown a woman cut in half. The woman survives unhurt. Then I discover how I think the trick is done and I shout ‘cheat’. I say they used a fake saw. I am wrong. I am sued. I pay up.

I have seen many a magic act without a ‘for entertainment’ disclaimer attached.

I hate that woman.

JB
 
She may have won a fairly substantial payout in this case, as the Fail made an allegation that they couldn't support with evidence, but they'll be out for her blood now.
Expect an expose on her to appear in their pages in the coming months.
 
Another good piece from Hayley Stevens:

Although the use of an earpiece to receive information from backstage has often been used by psychics in the past...there was no physical evidence that this had taken place during the Psychic Sally show in Dublin or elsewhere. This is why, when newspapers printed stories making the allegation of this happening they were in the wrong – even though it appeared that this was what happened, and even though a video emerged some time after the allegations made in September that showed Sally Morgan removing an earpiece after leaving the stage during one of her shows.
Click to expand...

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/the-arrogance-of-sally-morgan/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom