Lawyers ‘helped Coleen Rooney write her infamous “Wagatha Christie” post, documents claim

Coleen Rooney had help from ‘third parties’ to draft her ‘Wagatha Christie’ statement accusing Rebekah Vardy of leaking her private information to the press, court papers claim.   

Mrs Vardy’s lawyers claim a team of people – including solicitors – read over Mrs Rooney’s statement before it was published on her Twitter and Instagram accounts.

Should accusations that it was ‘prepared in advance’ be approved, questions will be asked about whether Mrs Rooney’s five-month investigation into the leaks was thorough enough.

In the statement, the wife of former England star Wayne Rooney claimed fellow footballer’s wife Mrs Vardy shared fake stories she had posted on her personal Instagram account with The Sun newspaper. 

Mrs Rooney infamously wrote: ‘I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’

Mrs Vardy – who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy – denies the accusations and is suing Mrs Rooney for damages for libel at the High Court in London.  

Coleen Rooney (left) had help from ‘third parties’ to draft her ‘Wagatha Christie’ statement accusing Rebekah Vardy (right) of leaking her private information to the press, court papers claim

Mrs Rooney wrote on Instagram and Twitter: ‘I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’ 

Rebekah Vardy (top) and Coleen Rooney watch England v Wales during Euro 2016 at Stade Bollaert-Delelis in Lens, France

They say the simultaneously-timed posts – on Mrs Rooney’s Instagram and Twitter accounts – sought ‘maximum publicity for the defendant’s message’.

They have accused Mrs Rooney of not properly looking into whether the leaked information could have come from her or her husband’s team of staff.

The documents, seen by The Sun, read: ‘The post… appears to have been prepared in advance.

‘It is inferred that the defendant had already reached a (false) conclusion to responsibility on a flawed “investigation” and rushed to publication without properly considering the evidence or making any further inquiry.’

Rebekah Vardy is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, pictured together at the Pride of Britain Awards in 2017

Coleen Rooney is married to Derby County footballer Wayne Rooney, pictured while he was at Manchester United in 2016

Mrs Vardy’s legal team have now requested information on when the post was written and who knew what information and at what stage.

A spokesperson for Mrs Rooney thinks the libel case will be defended successfully.  

Last month, court papers claimed Rebekah Vardy admitted getting cash from photographers when they sell pictures of her and her family.

Mrs Vardy said she ‘would receive a percentage of the revenue from their syndication’ to news organisations.

It came after Mrs Vardy dragged two more stars into her High Court war this week.

Legal papers sent to the High Court and seen by MailOnline show Mrs Rooney, 34, claimed Mrs Vardy, 38, ‘worked with a number of agencies to bolster her public persona’.

They allege Mrs Vardy ‘insisted’ the wives and girlfriends of England’s 2018 World Cup team in Russia posed for a team picture outside a restaurant in St Petersburg.

Legal papers sent to the High Court and seen by MailOnline show Mrs Rooney, 34, claimed Mrs Vardy, 38, ‘worked with a number of agencies to bolster her public persona’. They allege Mrs Vardy ‘insisted’ the wives and girlfriends of England’s 2018 World Cup team in Russia posed for a team picture outside a restaurant in St Petersburg (pictured)  

Mrs Rooney claims Mrs Vardy ‘did not let the others know’ she ‘arranged’ for a ‘paparazzo to be outside to photograph them’. 

She then says the image was sold on to a newspaper in Britain and that it could be ‘inferred’ Mrs Vardy ‘received payment directly or indirectly’.

Mrs Vardy denies the claims and said she ‘had nothing to do with the photograph’ and ‘received no payment’.

But she said she had worked with agencies to ‘take photographs’ of her, ‘her family or pets on the basis that she would receive a percentage of the revenue from their syndication’.