myurr wrote: ↑06 Mar 2024, 13:09
Watto wrote: ↑06 Mar 2024, 11:32
Anyway read his article again I wonder if he’s throwing a few hints out? Is Horner getting a little frisky with the PA. Gives a yes, but also makes a reference to tools to help generate fake conversations does he know something or is he just hypothesizing most of his article he seems to be hinting towards details he sees as fact. He didn’t really question at all if there was something between them nor that it’s probably not a great idea. Is he giving a hint that some of the messages are falsely generated?
I read the article and there's a couple of things that jump out. I've read some of Joe's stuff before, and whilst he usually has a pretty dry writing style it's clear he does have good connections in the paddock. I haven't read enough of his stuff to know where his allegiances lie / which parts of the paddock he's reliant upon for future access and stories.
Yes messages are easily generated, but there is no evidence that they have been here and plenty of evidence that the timeline and details match.
It's interesting that he dates it as March 2023 to January 2024. That is certainly an extended period of time.
He alludes to the victim saving the messages from the start, but his reasoning is false in my view. He says "Quite a few of these screenshots included the notations “CH online” or “CH typing”. This meant that the pictures were taken during a live conversation and not later when someone was going through the conversations looking for things to include in this dossier." It doesn't mean that at all.
It means that Horner was sending her messages whilst she was taking the screenshots. For instance he could have sent one of the messages that was clearly bothering the victim and she decided that enough was enough so started scrolling back through the messages to take the screenshots. That Horner was still typing has no bearing on her scroll position, and just means he was messaging her at the time she saved them.
There's also the evidence that several of the screenshots are in reverse order, where earlier files are taken further into the conversation, then she scrolls back further and takes another screenshot. That is more indicative of someone going back through the messages than saving them as they are sent.
He also seems to ignore that whilst some of the early flirting may be okay and consensual, whilst having feelings for each other can be complex and you can't help who you fall for, she very clearly asked him to stop and he did not comply. That is the point where flirting crosses into sexual harassment, and it becomes a sure fire breach of employment law where it is a manager harassing a subordinate.
Having re-read the messages I think it's relatively clear that the victim and Horner had / have strong feelings for each other, but that the victim was unable to reconcile having a relationship with Horner with him remaining in his marriage to Geri and ostensibly being happy. She outright tells him that if he's unhappy with Geri then he should tell her. Horner never does, he wants to have his cake and eat it, so the victim withdrew her consent and asked him to stop. She didn't stop caring about him but she wanted a complete relationship with him (or to find someone else) rather than an affair. Horner wanted a bit on the side whilst he was travelling the world, and he continued to try and coerce the victim into giving him what he wanted. The point that really crossed the line in a major way, for me, was his reference to giving her a way out and her replying that she didn't want to leave her job.
Joe seems to be discounting the harassment side of the story either because he thinks the victim was always out to trap him in some way (hence questioning saving the messages), or because he thinks having feelings for each other grants automatic consent. I hope that I'm misreading his intention and that's not how he actually feels.
He goes on to allude to the leaks coming from someone high up in the Austrian side of Red Bull GmbH, which I take to mean Mintzlaff.
I don't know if Joe has connections to Horner or has access to more concrete information than we do, but it does read like he's been fed at least some information by Horner or those sympathetic to him. In the comments Joe also says that he takes the KC's investigation at face value and that Horner was cleared, for me that means you need to take the rest of his conclusions with a pinch of salt.
