[fsckboy]

>Going on the stand and stating that you "don't know" whether the allegedly defamatory statements you are suing over are true or not is a... bold legal strategy.

if the statement is true, that's a defense against defamation.

if the statement is not believable, that is also a defense against defamation.

it actually was legal strategy designed to dance around the legal strategy behind those questions being asked, taking the air out of your insult

[giraffe_lady]

Are you saying you believe the cop who said, under oath, he "doesn't know" whether his wife could be having an affair with afroman chose to do that as part of a deliberate legal strategy? And that you think this casts him in a more positive light than merely being clueless?

[tantalor]

I think comment was alleging perjury.

They do know the statement is true (and this is provable). Pretending like they "don't know" is a lie under oath.

[snackbroken]

That wasn't actually what I was implying. Just that if the plaintiff isn't even willing to assert that the statements were false, what are you wasting the court's time for?

  > He falsely claimed my wife is cheating on me!
  > So you assert that your wife didn't cheat on you?
  > No.
  > ???

[tantalor]

Technically, the burden of proof is on the defendant.