This could get interesting. The obvious defense against defamation is to prove the claim you made is true, but that would require Cosby to prove that her claim is not true. How can you prove you didn’t grope someone decades ago?
On the other hand, if he countersues, then she will have to prove the claim is true, which would seem to be just as difficult. I bet the lawyers will just flip a coin to reach some settlement.
_________________________________________________________________
"And the most important thing is that Bill Cosby will be required to appear in court and to speak, and he will finally be heard."
--Tamara Green
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2869243/Woman-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-Bill-Cosby-alleges-publicly-branded-liar-statements-lawyer-publicist.html
“The obvious defense against defamation is to prove the claim you made is true, but that would require Cosby to prove that her claim is not true.”
In a defamation lawsuit the plaintiff must prove a statement was made by the defendant and the defendant’s statement was false and/or an unprivileged statement tending to cause the plaintiff to be held in ill repute. In the event the defendant did make such an otherwise unprivileged statement tending to cause the plaintiff to be held in ill repute, the defendant’s defense is to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was a true statement and a privileged statement even if the statement tends to hold the plaintiff in ill repute.
It appears the plaintiff will be obligated to present a proof by a preponderance of the evidence that Bill Cosby falsely denied the plaintiff’s truthful statements about Bill Cosby. In the even the plaintiff succeeds in presenting proof of the plaintiff’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, Bill Cosby will then be obligated to present evidence by a preponderance of the evidence that his statements about the plaintiff were truthful and privileged to hold the plaintiff’s reputation in ill repute.
Since Bill Cosby chose not to sue for defamation, the alleged victim has come forward to sue for defamation in order for the dispute to be adjudicated in a court of law.
Note, the amount of damages being claimed in the defamation lawsuit are insufficient to qualify as a monetary motive for suing, because the amount may not be large enough to even cover the attorney fees and costs if successful, and certainly not if the lawsuit is unsuccessful.
LOL, not quite. You can't slander someone and then claim defamation when they deny your allegations. And when your allegations contain no proof, then you can't prove you're not lying.
Cosby's counter-suit will also be for defamation, aggravated by malice. She slandered him first - if she can't prove her words, then she can't prove she not lying. And as an attorney she will be presumed to know she needed proof and didn't have it. Her whole case will be killed in discovery, and then she'll get buried by the counter-suit.
The whole thing is too stupid not to be a political defamation plot by any means necessary to keep it in the public eye.
This is the old rat trap. After he calls her a liar, she has an actionable claim. That means a deposition for him which he cannot handle. A dead rape claim is one thing, perjury is another. Well played but unsurprising.