Quote Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles View Post
Yes it's a defamation case. Which means Bruce's lawyers have to prove that people knew who the project was talking about even though they didn't name him. If they can do that then it's up to channel 10 to prove it's probable that he did rape her (rather than beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal trial). Not unlike the Bruce Roberts-smith case. Look how that went for him. We'll see how this goes I guess.
There is almost no actual evidence to make a case about rape. No DNA evidence. One person's word against another. I'm not even sure there is evidence that sex took place, as the lady didn't go to the police/hospital
Noone knows what actually happened

So seriously, this defamation case relies on the defence team proving that rape was likely?
What a waste of time and money
There are no winners here apart from the lawyers. Wait until it is announced just how much the lawyers will ask for in court costs