It sure does, if someone gives testimony and the testimony is not refuted than the burden is going to be upon the opposing party. Without the ability to refute the testimony you lose.
Only if her testimony is believable. If she were on the stand and told the same story that she did the Bham News and that sports mom website, a defense attorney would ask "How do you know this? Can you provide proof that your claims are true?" If she can't, then her testimony is absolutely worthless. In fact, if she were to say "I heard this from _________" and _________ didn't appear in court to back her up, then her entire testimony would be stricken from the record because it is uncorroborated hearsay. Hearsay testimony is only allowed as evidence if it can be corroborated.
Really irrelevant, that does not mean Collins Mom is lying. You called her a liar, you did not claim she was mistaken.
I don't think she is mistaken, I think she's lying. I'm not sure why you're confused about that.
Again, buddy she does not have to prove she isn't lying. She can tell her version and unless you can show she is lying the jury or the judge is going to believe whatever testimony is given.
Um, actually, the exact opposite is true. If she sues me for libel, then she has to PROVE that what I said was false. If she simply repeats what she's already said, without corroborating it, then my entire case is that she's lying. If she can't prove that she told the truth, then I can't libel her by calling her a liar. She has to PROVE that what I said was false. Simply repeating what I claimed was a lie doesn't refute my claim. Her testimony isn't believable unless it can be corroborated.
In this case, you have nothing that would suggest she is lying... she could be just mistaken and you have not contacted her to find out if she is mistaken or lying or neither.
Contacting her would be useless. Why would she say anything different than she's already said? And given how much she's talked, if she had back up, she'd have presented it. And if she's mistaken, that's fine. But she would have to clear that up. For it to be libel, she'd have to clear up the mistake, and I'd have to keep calling her a liar.
Evidence is her testimony, again you do not even know what evidence is, which again is your problem as you keep asking for evidence but you don't know what that is.
Again, I don't know what the evidence is because she hasn't produced any. If she were to do so, at that point I could determine whether or not I think she's lying based on that proof. But one person's uncorroborated testimony isn't evidence of anything.
No, not necessarily, you claimed people need evidence, but you don't know what that is, then you claim someone is a liar and then provide nothing but your gut I guess to make that determination as you had no evidence.
There are many different forms of evidence she could present to prove her claims are true. Even one other person's testimony would be more than she has right now. If she were to sue me, and she was the entire plaintiff's witness list, and she has no evidence other than what she's presented up to now, then the case would be thrown out in summary judgement. It wouldn't even make it to trial.
It's irrelevant, you called her a liar, not the same thing as someone being mistaken or given incorrect information. A liar is one that has given false information on purpose or knowing, yet you have provided nothing to sustain that claim.
Now if you want to say she is mistaken and quote your sources than that is only evidence to contrary that she is either lying or mistaken, but in your case you have nothing.
I don't actually need anything. I need nothing at all. Again, if you sue someone for libel, the defendant does not have to prove that his statement was true,
you have to prove that his statement was false. She would have to prove that I was making a knowingly false statement by calling her a liar. In the courtroom, she would be the accuser, and I would be the accused. You seem to think that her story is all that she needs, but her story is the basis for my statement. Her story doesn't prove me wrong.
I simply know that what she's claiming isn't true; she can only by lying or mistaken. And if she's mistaken, it's not my fault that she's mistaken. I'm not legally bound to give her that benefit of the doubt. Given the serious nature of her allegations, it should really be on her to confirm them before she makes them public. If she takes a mistaken allegation to the papers, she has to accept that accusations of lying could reasonably result from that mistake. Further, if she were to come out and admit that she was mistaken, I would stop calling her a liar, and simply say that she was extremely foolish for making statements that she hadn't confirmed. Either way, I haven't libeled her.
You could be right, maybe she is a liar, she might be correct, and she might be mistaken.... you don't know. Real journalist rarely if ever call someone a liar. Even murder suspects they will say alleged, why? Common freaking sense.
And if this were in an article or column with my byline, I wouldn't take on her claims with the same veracity. But since I'm on an internet message board, I'm not bound by any journalistic code of ethics. I have no obligation to be fair on volnation.com.
There is a big difference between calling someone a liar and telling someone there are mistaken. Not the same thing at all.
Of course. But saying something untrue automatically opens you up to accusations of lying. It's the risk you take you when make unsubstantiated claims in a public setting. I have absolutely no legal, ethical, or practical obligation to assume she is mistaken rather than lying. None whatsoever.
