Piers Morgan faced sharp criticism during a live TV debate about Meghan Markle and her father, Thomas Markle Snr, when a US attorney challenged the host's questioning of the Duchess's actions regarding the allegations against her father.
Earlier this week, Thomas Markle Snr, 82, was accused of possessing thousands of indecent images of children. Following the public disclosure of the allegations, Meghan said she was "deeply distressed" and revealed she had been aware of the claims since 2018.
The former Good Morning Britain host, 61, questioned why the 45-year-old mother-of-two had not gone public with the information to protect others. Morgan has been a vocal critic of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex since they stepped back as senior royals.
Attorney Challenges Morgan's Position
On Monday (October 26), Morgan welcomed Jo Elvin of The Royals Uncensored, The Royalist's Tom Sykes, Hollywood Unlocked's Jason Lee, YouTuber Kinsey Schofield and US attorney Mark Eiglarsh to discuss the development.
During the debate, Eiglarsh argued: "I want to address something that was said earlier. This burden on the Markles to answer, 'Did they do enough? Did she do enough to get law enforcement to do something?' Listen, I've represented many victims over my 34-year career.
"It is rare to get anything from law enforcement other than, 'We've got enough cases', 'Wait, that happened where? Yeah, that's not our jurisdiction.' So my guess is that if she was told they are conducting an investigation or an investigation is being conducted, then that should suffice."
Viewers React Online
Eiglarsh concluded: "It just doesn't happen; that's a fantasy." Elvin interjected, noting that Morgan's point was that one might expect follow-up on a letter after five or six years. Eiglarsh agreed that the lack of known follow-up does not mean none occurred.
Viewers quickly took to social media. One user wrote: "Piers Morgan and his panel were schooled by a lawyer on how law enforcement agencies operate and called out for shifting the burden onto Meghan Markle." Another said: "He is exactly right! She was a completely neutral third party in this case."
