""and a hearing took place on 23 October 2020. It was shortly after that hearing that the defendant notified
the claimant she was abandoning her truth defence.""

The point being she had no evidence to back her claim up. If evidence does exist then she should have obtained it before libelling him.

Poor journalism.

I have known several journalists in my lifetime and have had lengthy conversations with them about how they work. In their experience, which was considerable, no journalist would ever make up a story. Many know things for absolute certain that they cannot publish because to do so would either mean revealing a source who has not given them permission or getting themselves, or their employer, sued for defamation. Which the lawyers won’t allow.

So there is a lot which is known, but cannot be published. This results in slow burning investigations looking for any way in to publish their story.

It’s also true that people who know things that ought to be known about, but are unable to openly reveal, due to their position or contractual restrictions, leak them to a journalist. Especially when they believe them important and in the national interest. This is particularly true of the intelligence services.

The journalist will then have to decide how to handle the story. Drop hints and innuendo, publish and be damned, or publish and subsequently withdraw.

This is what I suspect has happened here. Cadwalladr was given a story by a trusted source, who could not be revealed. She knew it to be true and so important it must be made public. So she did, knowing it would be denied and she would have to withdraw. She found an outlet prepared to run the story and out it went.

That’s supposition on my part but it fits the known facts.

One of my journalist friends told me many years ago that the newspaper he worked for held some damning information on Enoch Powell but which it was impossible to publish and, so far as I know, never has been.

Did you miss what I wrote?

They have often have the evidence but cannot use it. That means in most cases nothing gets published but sometimes something is regarded as too important just to remain hidden from view. So ways are found to get the issue out, even at the risk of being sued or having to make a tactical withdrawal.

That’s not easy for a journalist to undertake, as they then risk a lot. It’s even more difficult to persuade the editors, owners and lawyers to allow the story to run. So if it does you can be pretty sure there’s something to it.

When someone has established a complex structure which provides a protective barrier of plausible deniability and possesses the capacity and willingness to sue if challenged you don’t take them on lightly and for no reason.

Except if it's in the Daily Mail of course.

Do you even understand what you are saying.

This journalist lost a libel case whilst various celebs have rushed to her defence it is noticeable that the major media outlets including the BBC have not.

You are making completely unsubstantiated allegations just like she did. Where is your proof?

When Trump makes allegations without proof you call him a liar.

Other the years there have been many rich and powerful people with a dodgy background. Responsible journalists wait until they have evidence they can use before making accusations.

Even your beloved BBC would not have said these things without proof.

Pointless arguing with you.

Did you miss what I wrote?

They have often have the evidence but cannot use it. That means in most cases nothing gets published but sometimes something is regarded as too important just to remain hidden from view. So ways are found to get the issue out, even at the risk of being sued or having to make a tactical withdrawal.

That’s not easy for a journalist to undertake, as they then risk a lot. It’s even more difficult to persuade the editors, owners and lawyers to allow the story to run. So if it does you can be pretty sure there’s something to it.

When someone has established a complex structure which provides a protective barrier of plausible deniability and possesses the capacity and willingness to sue if challenged you don’t take them on lightly and for no reason.