Where is MAURA MURRAY

sf after gulf?

I should have added that a person's decision to appear and comment anonymously always should be respected and I do not believe it's appropriate to investigate their true identity, for example, by encouraging them to accept an email message, or to send them an email message when the actual intent is to obtain their email address in an effort to discover their identity and where they live. That's dishonest.

In my situation, I decided to discard my anonymity and I voluntarily chose to identify himself. I was not offended by efforts to verify my identity.

I don't see anything wrong in asking someone to identify himself or herself, but the request should not be made more than once and a "no" response should be accepted and respected. Badgering someone to justify their refusal is improper because everyone has the right to post anonymously and no one should be criticized for exercising their right to remain anonymous.

The only exception to this rule that I would support is when an anonymous poster claims to be an expert and expresses an opinion urging us to believe the opinion because he or she is an expert. In that situation, I think it's appropriate to ask the expert for a resume or CV to examine their credentials. The person has the same right as anyone else to decline and preserve anonymity, but the refusal may result in people choosing to disregard the person's claim to be an expert.

In this way, anyone can continue to be anonymous and each person can independently accept or reject the opinion depending on what they know and the significance they place on the refusal to supply credentials.

I don't believe it's necessary to establish a rule to this effect unless people refuse to accept and respect "no" for an answer and they begin to hatch and carry-out schemes to discover the anonymous poster's personal information.

Such conduct should be regarded by all as abusive and the remedy probably should be to ban the person from the site. Granted that the punishment is only symbolic because the banned person can reappear using another name, but I don't believe we can do anything else.

We should all do everything we can to protect anonymity and freedom on the internet IMO.

Fred

She did not believe I was the “real” Fred Leatherman I claimed to be and she challenged me to prove it.
***I, too, didn't believe you were the FL you claimed to be, due to the frequency of posters using multiple screen-names, and some even assuming the names of others on this and a related thread. Unfortunately, you arrived at the peak of this frenzy.
Looking closely, then, I assumed it to be possible to observe the sudden appearances, and subsequent disappearnces, of posters in question and draw some accurate conclusions about professional claims.***
I voluntarily provided personal information that no one could have forced me to provide to resolve the issue. Resolving my identity turned out to be more complicated than I thought it would be and I got pretty frustrated when people continued to believe that I was an incredibly devious pretender.
***In the beginning, the content of your posts was exceptional, and uniquely reflected the background you claimed to be yours.
However, when "Mason's" posts became increasingly hostile about FM, I chose to look back over 300+ pages on Topix, and landing at p. 524 in an attempt to distinguish Mason from Mastermind from Prop. Firetruck and others.
Staying focused on content might have been easier without the swirl of identity games.
Enter John, also claiming to be a lawyer.
Hmmm. Improbable or believable?***
Why did I choose to disclose my true identity and should others do the same?
Because of my unique background and experience, I believe I have expertise in many areas that other posters do not have.
***Absolutely***
To the extent that I considered the possibility that someone might challenge me, I thought my opinions would stand or fall based on their content.
***Indeed, a reasonable expectation.***
I failed to consider the important role that credentials play when a person decides whether to accept or reject an expert opinion. Without disclosing my true identity, I described my background in general terms and offered my assistance.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
I went west Alden. Never even stopped in Illinos.

Beg your pardon, but I am not Alden!

Part 2
I eventually decided that people have a right to know the identity and credentials of anyone who presents himself as an expert in a subject matter that is relevant and material to the discussion in the forum. Since I was claiming to be an expert in (1) the proper procedures for police to follow in homicide investigations,(2) the proper method to collect and preserve evidence, including documenting the chain of custody,(3) deciding what evidence to submit to a crime laboratory for forensic analysis, including DNA testing,(4) legal procedures such as applying for search warrants, decisions to arrest, the charging procedure, elements of crimes, legal presumptions, the burden of proof, and proof problems, and (4) the rights of private citizens to obtain information in police investigation files, etc., I concluded that all of you have the right to know who I am, what I know, and how I know it so that you can decide whether to accept or reject what I say. This is how it works in a court of law and I believe it makes sense to apply the same principle here. Therefore, since I chose to assert that I knew what I was talking about and I expressed opinions regarding disputed matters, anyone is entitled to challenge my claim that I know what I am talking about. I believe that anyone who expresses an opinion regarding a disputed matter in an effort to convince others that his opinion should be accepted because he is an expert in that matter, reasonably should expect to be challenged and be willing to provide sufficient information, such as a current resume or curriculum vitae, that details his knowledge and experience. If the person refuses to provide that information and insists on remaining anonymous, then I believe forum members are entitled to reject and ignore the purported expert’s opinion. This procedure will not require anyone to give up their anonymity.

***Agree. Absolutely.***

Several websites that I frequent feature special guests from time to time who appear on line and answer questions posted by forum participants for an hour or so. Often they are experts in a matter that is being debated and discussed in the forum, or they may be an author of recently published book. They appear as themselves to answer questions posed by anonymous bloggers. I like this procedure and I recommend we adopt it. For example, several people have mentioned profiling and Dr. Godwin’s name has been mentioned. Perhaps he would agree to appear as a guest and answer questions about the possibility that a serial rapist or killer may have abducted Maura Murray. I believe this idea is worth pursuing because we get to learn new stuff and apply it in our discussions. There are lots of qualified experts from which to choose on a wide variety of topics and there may even be some witnesses who might be willing to appear and answer our questions.

***Interesting idea.***

Mason wrote:

Part 3
Now I’m going to switch to a brief discussion of the law of defamation, which is a subject that I covered while teaching torts in law school during the spring semester, 2008.
As long as a person refrains from making a false statement about someone, they do not have to fear that they will be held liable for defamation. If I were to assert as fact that X abducted and murdered Maura Murray, X could sue me for libel. To prevail, however, he would have to prove that the statement is false. The best way to stay out of harm’s way and not defame others is to use hypotheticals. There is a big difference between saying,“If X killed Maura, then Y” or “Assuming X killed Maura, then Y” and asserting as fact “X killed Y.” The first two examples are hypotheticals that do not assert X killed Maura. The third example is a statement of fact and it is defamatory, if it’s false.
There is a lot more to say about the law of defamation, but I am going to stop here and keep it simple.
Do not assert as fact that someone is a murderer, or a rapist, or a child molester, or anything else that might damage that person’s reputation unless you know it’s true. Even then you should exercise caution because you may believe you are right and your belief may be mistaken. You may be held liable, even though you believed you were right, if you were negligent in forming your belief.
Fred

Brilliant/Interesting/Helpful

I perceived 'hypotheticals' in your earlier posts to be clearer than in later posts.
I hadn't actively confirmed or denied my suspicions, then or now, but accept your earnest representation of yourself, with a sincere apology for all your trouble.

I should have added that a person's decision to appear and comment anonymously always should be respected and I do not believe it's appropriate to investigate their true identity, for example, by encouraging them to accept an email message, or to send them an email message when the actual intent is to obtain their email address in an effort to discover their identity and where they live. That's dishonest.

***Unquestionably.***

In my situation, I decided to discard my anonymity and I voluntarily chose to identify himself. I was not offended by efforts to verify my identity.
I don't see anything wrong in asking someone to identify himself or herself, but the request should not be made more than once and a "no" response should be accepted and respected. Badgering someone to justify their refusal is improper because everyone has the right to post anonymously and no one should be criticized for exercising their right to remain anonymous.

***Agree***

The only exception to this rule that I would support is when an anonymous poster claims to be an expert and expresses an opinion urging us to believe the opinion because he or she is an expert. In that situation, I think it's appropriate to ask the expert for a resume or CV to examine their credentials. The person has the same right as anyone else to decline and preserve anonymity, but the refusal may result in people choosing to disregard the person's claim to be an expert.
In this way, anyone can continue to be anonymous and each person can independently accept or reject the opinion depending on what they know and the significance they place on the refusal to supply credentials.
I don't believe it's necessary to establish a rule to this effect unless people refuse to accept and respect "no" for an answer and they begin to hatch and carry-out schemes to discover the anonymous poster's personal information.
Such conduct should be regarded by all as abusive and the remedy probably should be to ban the person from the site. Granted that the punishment is only symbolic because the banned person can reappear using another name, but I don't believe we can do anything else.
We should all do everything we can to protect anonymity and freedom on the internet IMO.
Fred

***Fred ~ As previously mentioned, an abuser who blogs under the guise of protecting First Amendment Rights has consistently failed to abide by these decent and reasonable guidelines. Unfortunately, the consequence of his negative influence, detailed here and elsewhere, has eroded trust, violated the privacy of others, and has contributed to some of the confusion.***

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
Unlike moi who would be whimpering and whining non stop.

Nah, not me. I'd just be walking around barefoot and whinging about THAT! LOL

In 1923, Dr. Sidney Cadwell, working in [Naugatuck Chemical Company's] General Laboratories in New Jersey, hit upon the formula of VGB, the first reliable anti-oxidant.

Above from: The History of Naugatuck, Connecticut by Constance McLaughlin Green.

I suppose I should explain the legal definition of negligence since I pointed out that a false statement can result in liability for defamation even if the person believed the statement was true, if they were negligent.
The elements of a cause of action for defamation are:
1. Utter a false statement;
2. A duty (to avoid harming another person by uttering a false statement about that person);
3. Act breaching the duty (failing to exercise reasonable care to verify the statement is true before uttering it);
4. Proximate Cause (but for the failure to exercise reasonable care, the false statement would not have been made);
5. Monetary damages.
The but for test has nothing to do with women’s underwear.

BTW, freedom of speech is not absolute and it does not protect a person who utters a false statement about another person without exercising reasonable care to verify the statement is true.

With this important exception: If the false statement is about a public official or a public figure, the person who uttered the false statement must have known it was false when they uttered it and they must have intended to harm the person when they uttered the statement Intent to harm), or they must have known the statement was false and they uttered it anyway (reckless disregard of the consequences).

The public official and public figure exception was created by the U.S. Supreme Court in the late 60s in New York Times v. Sullivan. The new rule imposing a higher and more difficult to prove mental state (intent to harm or reckless disregard instead of negligence) was established to protect the media from liability for defamation unless they intentionally or recklessly published false statements regarding public officials or public figures. The Court decided for public policy reasons that the negligence standard was too easy to prove and its effect on the media was restricting the flow of information to the public. Better to allow the harm caused by publishing the occasional false statement negligently made than to restrict the publication of true statements because the media hasn't had sufficient time to verify the statement is true).

The next time you're standing in line waiting to pay for your groceries, take a look at the National Enquirer and ask yourself how much money it has made because of New York Times v. Sullivan.

Nevertheless, I agree with the decision because I think the Court correctly realized that the negligence standard would prevent many true stories from being published, particularly since no one remembers much about yesterday's news and the glory goes to who breaks the story first.

The easier to prove negligence standard would apply in Maura's case to any false statement made about anyone except a public official as there are no public figures involved (that I know about).

AGAIN: THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT PROTECT A PERSON WHO NEGLIGENTLY UTTERS A FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON.

Johnny Bravado wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously you need things analyzed and broken down for you by someone else too because you certainly cannot do this yourself, and I'll be happy to do so.

Mason, your input: He’s stating I need things analyzed/broken down for me by someone else as I can’t do it myself … Is this defamation??? Ordinarily I’d think it might be his opinion, but he’s stating this as a fact in a public forum …

Johnny Bravado wrote:

(a) I had initially said that I've basically done a lot for this case, more than most. Your response to this was "Sez you" - but somehow you cannot absorb how you "even implied" expecting me to post information. Somehow this doesn't surprise me, but I'll be happy to break it down for you. Saying "Sez you" to such a response is synonymous with saying "How do I know you're telling the truth? I'm just going off what you say," hence 'Sez you'. One defense you can attempt to argue is that you were simply acknowledging what I had said by saying "Sez you" - in other words, you weren't trying to subliminally imply anything, but rather acknowledging my efforts. However, anyone with the street-smarts of a rat knows exactly what's implied when you respond to such a statement with "Sez you." Now, to prove this directly and also to explain how you contradicted yourself within two sentences, you remark "we haven't seen anything from you to suggest that" - suggest that I've done more for this case than most? My "posts usually are bashing.." OK, so you're ostensibly saying that you EXPECT me to explain publicly on this forum each and every detail that I've uncovered or discovered, regardless of how damaging the details may be?

JB, you are mistaken. I did not imply that you should post details or any sensitive information. That’s your projection re what you thought I implied. It would not be necessary to post any details or results of anything you’ve done in order to satisfy the implication of “Sez you.” Quite a few people in this forum have done things for this case, and we know at least generally what many of them have done or are doing. For example, we know there are two PIs (at least) who have put in time investigating, including on-the-ground work at the site on Rt. 112, viewing the Saturn at its location, no doubt making phone calls, certainly interviewing potential or actual witnesses, etc. They don’t have to tell us the details of what they have discovered in order for us to have a feel for what they have done and are doing.

Johnny Bravado wrote:

And if I don't, then I "haven't made anything to suggest that" I've done a lot for this case. "Haven't made anything to suggest that", without the pronouns, is saying "haven't made any posts to suggest you've done more for this case or have unique information."

JB, I never used the phrase “haven’t made”. I said “haven’t seen…” Your reading skills are slipping.

Part II.

Johnny Bravado wrote:

You've made two consecutive posts now that support this unreasonable expectation of yours. This was so blatantly obvious that it's sad that I even had to break it down like this. Either you're incredibly dumb or you intentionally lied and said you weren't trying to imply anything when you know very well you were, as this is as obvious as can be from the wording.

JB, the “unreasonable expectation” is in your head, not mine.

Johnny Bravado wrote:

And my posts show "very little interest in this case"? Since you're such an expert on my posts, tell me, how many posts have I made altogether? And for how long have I been posting on this forum? What percentage of my posts are about Maura and what percentage is bashing propaganda firetruck?

It would be easier to determine how many posts you have made if you had made all of them under the name Johnny Bravado, which you haven’t. Likewise for “how long” you have been posting on this forum. Thus it is not clearly discernable what percentage of your posts are about Maura and what percentage are bashing propaganda firetruck; however, your most recent posts – the ones that flew up a couple of days ago smack into the middle of a discussion focused on Maura, the ones I initially commented to you about – were posted solely to bash propaganda firetruck. And with respect to a large number of your other posts, while they may have included some thoughts about Maura, they also included remarks about the stupidity of the person or ideas of other posters, which would be “bashing” by any definition. It’s not much of a stretch to get the sense that you are more interested in putting down the persons and ideas of others, than in really contributing to the purpose of the forum.

Johnny Bravado wrote:

..continued..
(b) If *YOU* think I have useful information, you'd recommend I give it to the NHSP or a PI? OH, REALLY? Gee, thanks for the information. I had no idea. What in the name of fuck makes you believe I haven't been exchanging info with them for however long?

What makes you believe I didn’t realize you had no idea? Lucky you, now you have the opportunity to explain to me what sarcasm is :) Go ahead, make my day.

<Apparently irrepressible rant snipped for brevity.>

Johnny Bravado wrote:

..(d) "If it means absolutely nothing to you whether or not we know of what you've done, then why keep announcing that you've done so much? The one stance contradicts the other." In all my time on this forum, the only time I've ever 'announced' that I've done 'so much' was in my response to Lady Gray, and that was only mentioned as a response to her specific post.

JBRAVADO TO LADY GRAY IN PREVIOUS POST: >> I've physically done more for this case and trying to find Maura than probably 90% of the people in this forum.<<

JBRAVADO TO ME IN PREVIOUS POST: >> You obviously don't know me and/or what I've done for this case. <<

JBRAVADO TO ME IN THE POST I AM CURRENTLY RESPONDING TO: >> What do you know about me or what I've done? Absolutely nothing. But of course, I haven't posted each and every detail of what I've done and what I know on this forum. <<

These statements are all of a kind: they put emphasis on what you’ve “done” for this case, and either say or suggest that you have done a lot, none of which we know about. It’s fine if you don’t want to tell us, that is your prerogative. But it seems to me that it’s a bit insulting to claim you’ve done more for this case and trying to find Maura than probably 90% of the people in this forum, when you don’t know what most people in the forum have done for the case, either, as far as I can make out.

And that comes on the heels of making insulting remarks to several posters, sneering at their ideas and their IQs. Perhaps you are not aware that Weeper has on several occasions encouraged posters to Think Outside The Box, to consider whatever scenarios we come up with and lay them up against what known facts we have to see what fits, what doesn’t, etc. You’ve come on here and been pooh-poohing this process that Weeper encouraged. Again, that's your prerogative ....

Johnny Bravado wrote:

In all sincerity, I take absolutely no amusement in any disparaging posts towards anybody - every negative post I've made has always been a response to something directed at me.

Like this one?|#14492 Or this one?|#14560 Are the ha-ha’s not amusement?? Hm. Learn something new every day.

Mason wrote:

BTW, freedom of speech is not absolute and it does not protect a person who utters a false statement about another person without exercising reasonable care to verify the statement is true.
With this important exception: If the false statement is about a public official or a public figure, the person who uttered the false statement must have known it was false when they uttered it and they must have intended to harm the person when they uttered the statement Intent to harm), or they must have known the statement was false and they uttered it anyway (reckless disregard of the consequences).
The public official and public figure exception was created by the U.S. Supreme Court in the late 60s in New York Times v. Sullivan. The new rule imposing a higher and more difficult to prove mental state (intent to harm or reckless disregard instead of negligence) was established to protect the media from liability for defamation unless they intentionally or recklessly published false statements regarding public officials or public figures. The Court decided for public policy reasons that the negligence standard was too easy to prove and its effect on the media was restricting the flow of information to the public. Better to allow the harm caused by publishing the occasional false statement negligently made than to restrict the publication of true statements because the media hasn't had sufficient time to verify the statement is true).
The next time you're standing in line waiting to pay for your groceries, take a look at the National Enquirer and ask yourself how much money it has made because of New York Times v. Sullivan.
Nevertheless, I agree with the decision because I think the Court correctly realized that the negligence standard would prevent many true stories from being published, particularly since no one remembers much about yesterday's news and the glory goes to who breaks the story first.
The easier to prove negligence standard would apply in Maura's case to any false statement made about anyone except a public official as there are no public figures involved (that I know about).
AGAIN: THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT PROTECT A PERSON WHO NEGLIGENTLY UTTERS A FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON.

In theory...ABSOLUTELY!
To enforce violations by proving to a standard of negligence is another matter, indeed.

In the situation I mention, false uttering and intended harm against public officials has been constant.

Even after a number of years, enforcement of internet violations in this realm is still in its infancy. A wide-open field, I'd guess. To date, NH hasn't created enough structure to reel in a fish or two...not a priority.

Fortunately, unlike the tabloids, there is little profit in most blog endeavors.

Fascinating stuff...to watch.

Thank you for offering information and your perspective...very much appreciated.

Dawn wrote:

I think where the talk of the 'locals' comes from - from what I can see - we have some on the board that are very proud of the area - WW/Wowzer come to mind. I think we all know there are some bad apples in every bushel. Not everyone can be a 'good citizen' and only want that recognized. Not saying they had anything to do with Maura missing.
Just admit - every town has flaws - we are human - it will happen everywhere - people tend to push back when its over and over that NH has perfect people. They don't. There isn't a place in the USA that is perfect. Unfortuantly - people can turn out to be a bad person.
I also think that the locals - would have been seen in better light if they helped or allowed people to search. I know wowzer doesn't like that. But - if it happens by house - go for it. I will even bring you a cup of coffee and maybe make you a sandwich. I don't want some perp out there that could hurt me
It could have been someone passing through - visiting family - only to return at a later date. Find the clues - before he/she strikes again.

I'am appauled about your statement concerning tne locals. From day one there have been many locals that stood by our side to help us and support us in our search for Maura. Many have also allowed us to search there property and many have also gone out and searched on there own. I appreciate what the people of NH have done on behalf of Maura.

You might want to print this message and save it for future reference, if you're ever in a situation where you've been injured and you are thinking about suing the person who caused the injury.

People who have suffered harm or injury caused by another person's negligent act should consider whether the other person has the financial ability to pay a judgment before deciding to file a lawsuit. A person may have a bullet-proof lawsuit with provable damages in the 6 to 7 figure range, but the lawsuit is worthless if the defendant does not have any assets to pay the judgment. Depending on the law in the state where the lawsuit is filed, a judgment will be enforceable for several years. In Washington State, for example, the period is 10 years. If the defendant does not have any assets when the judgment is entered and finalized, but acquires assets later, before the 10-year period expires, the plaintiff can enforce the judgment against those assets. The plaintiff has to keep an eye on the defendant during the 10-year period to see if he behaves in a manner that suggests he has acquired real estate or money because so-called judgment proof defendants are not known for contacting plaintiffs to let them know they can pay some or all of the judgment.

The typical fee arrangement in a civil suit seeking money damages for personal injury is contingent on winning and collecting damages. This means the plaintiff does not have to pay a fee to the lawyer unless the lawyer wins and collects the judgment. The fee will vary from one-third to one-half of the judgment collected, depending on the agreement negotiated with the lawyer and whether the case is resolved by settlement before trial or it goes to trial.

Sounds risk free, right? Not really, because the client is responsible for paying the costs, win or lose, and the costs can be substantial. Costs include filing fees, service of process fees, expert witness fees, court reporter fees to produce official transcripts of depositions, travel, lodging, and per diem fees, witness fees, etc. In a medical malpractice case, for example, it's not unusual to incur costs that run into 6 figures. Many plaintiffs personal injury lawyers will agree to pay the costs as they accumulate, but you will have to reimburse them, if they do. Some expert witnesses like medical doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists will agree to wait to receive payment until the case is resolved, if they have an established long-term relationship with the lawyer representing you. If you need medical or mental health treatment but cannot afford it because you lack health insurance, for example, the lawyer who agrees to represent you may be able to refer you to someone who will treat you and wait to be paid.

Part 2

How can you ball-park your damages? First, you total up all of your out-of-pocket expenses to deal with the injury. Such expenses include medical expenses (ambulance, ER, surgery, hospital stays, medications, tests, X-rays, MRIs, rehabilitation, follow-up doctor visits, counseling, etc), time-off from work, medical equipment rentals, travel fees for doctor visits, parking fees during doctor visits, etc. Basically, every penny that you spent, every penny that you lost, and every penny that you still have to pay and reasonably can expect to pay in the future to recover fully from the injury is compensable. These expenses are called special damages and, of course, you have to keep good records backed-up with receipts and monthly statements.

You also are entitled to recover damages for pain and suffering, or general damages. It's impossible to quantify and assign monetary amounts for general damages, so everyone follows the basic formula developed by the insurance industry. Your general damages are worth 3 times your special damages. Add the general to your special damages to get your ball-park figure. For example, if your special damages total $30,000 your general damages will be $90,000 and your ball-park estimate will be $120,000

Even though you will be responsible for paying the costs of the lawsuit, most lawyers will subtract the costs from the judgment and take their fee out of the balance. For example, if the costs total $20,000 the usual practice is to subtract that amount from the judgment, which reduces it to $100,000.

If the lawyer's fee is one-third, the lawyer's fee is $33,333.33 and you get the rest,$66,666.67

This amount is not income, so you don't have to pay taxes on it.

You should reimburse insurance payments.

Some states allow punitive damages to punish defendants who intentionally harm others. Punitive damages are limited to 10 times the amount of compensatory damages awarded by a jury. If a jury awarded the same amounts that I've used in my example, the jury may assess punitive damages up to $1,200,000. Add this amount to the compensatory damages and your judgment will be $1,320,000.

Page 3

Before you start planning how you're going to spend the money, don't forget my warning. Can the defendant pay the judgment? In many cases the answer to that question depends on whether the defendant has insurance. If he owns real estate and stock or bonds that haven't been wiped out by the Wall Street and housing market collapse, you can collect part or all of your judgment out of those assets to satisfy the balance owing on the judgment not paid by insurance.

If you are considering suing someone for libel, remember that you have to prove that the person made a false statement about you without exercising reasonable care to make sure the statement was true and you suffered provable monetary damages as a result. Mere insults rarely, if ever, cause money damages, so you can forget suing someone for calling you an SOB, for example. As an aside, don’t forget truth is a defense!

However, if someone utters a false statement that harms your business reputation, or a false statement that you have a sexually transmitted disease, or a false statement that you were convicted of a crime, or a false statement about a woman's voracious sexual appetite outside of marriage, monetary damages will be presumed even if they are difficult to identify.

Generally speaking, you have to be able to prove that the false statement caused you to lose a lot of money to have a defamation case worth pursuing. For this reason, we don't see many defamation cases filed as the result of internet mud slinging.

This post is a general summary of the law pertaining to damages caused by personal injury that I offer as a quick and easy reference to consult, if you should have a question. Since I did not prepare this as an authoritative treatise on the law of damages for personal injuries caused by defamatory statements, please do not rely on it for that purpose. Instead, use it as a guide to estimate the potential value of a lawsuit for personal injury and use it to build a set of questions to ask a lawyer when you go lawyer shopping.

Peace, live long, and prosper,

Fred

Expressing a negative opinion about another person is not defamatory because expressions of opinion are not statements of fact.

"X is a child rapist" is a false statement, if it isn't true, and X may sue for defamation.

"I believe X is a child rapist" is an expression of opinion and if X isn't a child rapist, he still does not have a cause of action for defamation.

Fred