News & Observer hit with $6 million libel judgment

[User 4332]

This is a big blow to the N&O's reputation and to the veracity of a series that led to major changes in the State Bureau of Investigation.

Wake jury awards $7.5 million to punish N&O in libel trial

Whoever wrote the headline can't do math. It's a $6 million verdict, not $7.5 million. That's the statutory maximum judgment, by the way. I suspect the jury would have gone much higher if they could have.

 

[UPChip]

This is a big blow to the N&O's reputation and to the veracity of a series that led to major changes in the State Bureau of Investigation.

Wake jury awards $7.5 million to punish N&O in libel trial

Whoever wrote the headline can't do math. It's a $6 million verdict, not $7.5 million. That's the statutory maximum judgment, by the way. I suspect the jury would have gone much higher if they could have.

I'm trying to deduce it from this article, but can someone give a one-paragraph summation of how this got ****ed up?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I'm trying to deduce it from this article, but can someone give a one-paragraph summation of how this got ****ed up?

It seems like the issue was written about at the very end of this article. The paper reported that independent firearms experts questioned her expertise and pretty much accused her of fabricating evidence to help the prosecutors. Four of the sources later testified that they were either misquoted or what they said was taken out of context.

So, it seems like the paper was accusing her of fabricating evidence after misquoting or taking out of context what the sources said.

 

[Songbird]

later testified that they were either misquoted or what they said was taken out of context.

How does one prove "out of context"?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

How does one prove "out of context"?

If they said one thing and she wrote something else that was really far-fetched.

 

[Songbird]

The nature of reality is pure subjective fantasy.