haha!I thought this this morning. Normal libel cases require proof that libellous accusations are wrong. Since they've already eaten and shat her body, there's never going to be evidence, so in my opinion, there is no case to answer.
(
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:23,
archived)
Thing ishow can they prove that the daily Express libelled them, when it's not yet been proven that they were/were not involved...
Its very odd.
(Its very odd.
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:26,
archived)
they havemoneyand are therefore, right :)
(
discomeats This canoe,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:30,
archived)
yeh, this is my problemwhich is why it's such a shitty sum for such a big case.
( drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:36,
archived)
Who has to provide the proof? If someone libels you, do you have to prove they're wrong, or do they have to prove they're right? I suspect the latter, hence the verdict.
(
shrinking man Been away a while, time I ventured back,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 17:01,
archived)