baggers44 he would be able to sue the broadcaster/newspapers for defamation - hence their confidence in the credibility of the allegations pre-publication. They would not have published unless the complainants would be willing to give evidence. that evidence will have been stress tested by an army of lawyers pre publication
Are the broadcasters/newspapers involved actually accusing him themselves though? It appears as if all they are doing is passing on that some anonymous people are accusing him, while claiming there is some what sounds like very limited “evidence” to make their claims not sound completely absurd.
I don’t know all the ins and outs of defamation law, but Depp failed when sueing The Sun for libel when it repeated Amber Heard’s claim of Depp being a domestic abuser because all The Sun had to do was show that they believed the story was credible enough based on the limited information they had seen. (Though that case also seemed a bit dodgy with the judge having a conflict of interest with The Sun and an appeal being refused).
He also then didn’t sue the Washington Post even though that was where Heard published her article claiming she’d been a victim of domestic abuse.
But he could sue Heard because it was her who had actually made the false allegations and was then shown to have made false claims and passed on misleading information to the publishers.
The publishers seem to have a convenient out in cases such as that, and possibly this, in that they can ultimately claim that they were also lied to and duped by the original claimants, and all they had done was relay the information which was provided by someone else which had seemed believable enough at the time.
