Curiosity Never Kills the Cat: Legal Questions for VERIFIED LAWYERS- ~No Discussion~

[AZlawyer]

Thanks, I appreciate your legal expertise on this.

I believe a compelling case can be made arguing that her opinions border on slander based on her 1) intent, 2) repetitive accusations couched in opinion form made time and time again across multiple, varied media and public arenas 3) and verbal manipulations of words -- that while she appears to be giving an opinion by using "I think" or "In my opinion", her additional assertions identifying herself as a scientist and an expert provide sufficient evidence that she is, in fact, making claims that her "opinions" are equivalent to scientific "facts", and thus, crosses the line into slander.

While I understand your legal points, I believe if XZ can obtain a solid, reputable lawyer, a strong defamation case can be made.

However, if the Zahaus had to chose between a defamation vs. a wrongful death suit, I think they should choose the latter because there is more than sufficient evidence in the wrongful death suit of who the culprit(s) are, and more to be gain in terms of obtaining justice for Becky.

Oh, I agree that her statements, if false, "border" on defamation. But one can't sue (or more accurately can't win a suit) for "near-defamation."

 

[bourne]

It's possible that the Zahaus could make it to trial, although IMO they would need a lot more evidence than this to win.

In wrongful death suit, all the plaintiff needs a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not, greater than 50%) that the defendant is guilty of causing the death of victim. In this case, if Zahaus sue -- let's hypothesize, they sue Dina -- the Zahaus would be the plaintiffs, and Dina would be the defendant.

The elements of murder:
1) Motive
2) Means
3) Opportunity

Motive - Dina clearly has motive, as does any parent whose child is critically injured and in a coma. Motive is a strong one -- vengeance for injured child.

Means - Becky was tied up with special knots, and a stabilizing rope arrangement was made around foot of bed. Becky's hands were bound with tugboat rope behind her back, and her ankles were bound with same type of rope. A noose was also tied around Becky's neck using same rope. Dina and Nina reportedly know how to tie such knots because they grew up with a Navy father who also owned a moving company which used the stabilizing rope arrangement for furniture moves, and they both frequently sailed with their family and Jonah and learned the knot skills. (Becky, on the other hand, reportedly had no such experience as she did not have any sailing training in her background, so this would be additional evidence AGAINST Becky having suicided, not including the physical impossibility for Becky to have leaped over a 3-4 feet balcony and over a 3-4 feet high railing without disturbing dust on the railing or balcony floor, while her hands are wrapped with rope multiple times and tied behind her back, her ankles are also wrapped multiple times with heavy tugboat rope, a tight noose around her neck, a t-shirt wrapped around 3 times tightly around her neck AND stuffed down her throat -- how can anyone even breathe, let alone magically hop over a 3-4 feet wide balcony and over 3-4 feet high railing AND without leaving any DNA/prints on balcony/railing?).

Opportunity - Becky was killed sometime between 9:45pm Tues through Wed 3am. Dina has no alibi. Sheriff Gore stated at presser that the only thing they is that her cellphone "pinged in the vicinity of the hospital". Now, given that Dina herself claimed she was sitting vigil by Max's side at the hospital, how is it that only Jonah is captured on surveillance video at the hospital and Dina is not? Her cellphone may have pinged, but that would only mean her cellphone was physically at the vicinity of the hospital, not that Dina was. So where was Dina and why did she lie that she was sitting vigil by Max's bedside at the hospital?

IMO Dina has the strongest motive, means and opportunity to murder Becky, more than sufficient preponderance of circumstantial (if not direct) evidence to find her guilty.

 

[bourne]

It is the "statement of fact" part I was talking about. Opinions can't be the basis for a defamation action, even if you say them over and over again in every forum you can think of. Again, think about the WS posts you see every day. Would you be comfortable if, e.g., Casey Anthony could sue every WS'er who said that they believed the evidence irrefutably proved that Casey killed Caylee?

I'm sounding like a recorder now.

I believe there's a huge difference between giving opinions on forums such as WS where thousands of posters participate and where the primary purpose is one of entertainment versus someone like Dina independently hiring a high-priced legal team to do numerous public relations pressers and make live tv rounds on such "news" shows as Dr. Phil, Dr. Drew, etc. with the specific intent to finger-point at the Zahau sisters without any solid evidence while couching her accusations in opinion form and simultaneously asserting that she is a "scientist" whose "expert" opinions should count as more than the ordinary WS sleuther.

If we WS sleuthers did the same thing as Dina, I would also call it slander. Furthermore, the majority of us WS sleuthers sincerely want justice for all victims, and when we post, we don't use words such as "I"m a scientist" or "I'm a Dr" and therefore, I'm an expert and my opinions are worth more than other people's and should be equated with "scientific facts", nor do most of us WS posters assert that we have "irrefutable, incontrovertible, scientific evidence" when we give our opinions and speculations.

I think what Dina is doing is unethical, immoral, and just plain wrong, disgusting, and defamatory.

But let's get off this topic as we're going in circles. LOL

 

[AZlawyer]

In wrongful death suit, all the plaintiff needs a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not, greater than 50%) that the defendant is guilty of causing the death of victim. In this case, if Zahaus sue -- let's hypothesize, they sue Dina -- the Zahaus would be the plaintiffs, and Dina would be the defendant.

The elements of murder:
1) Motive
2) Means
3) Opportunity

Motive - Dina clearly has motive, as does any parent whose child is critically injured and in a coma. Motive is a strong one -- vengeance for injured child.

Means - Becky was tied up with special knots, and a stabilizing rope arrangement was made around foot of bed. Becky's hands were bound with tugboat rope behind her back, and her ankles were bound with same type of rope. A noose was also tied around Becky's neck using same rope. Dina and Nina reportedly know how to tie such knots because they grew up with a Navy father who also owned a moving company which used the stabilizing rope arrangement for furniture moves, and they both frequently sailed with their family and Jonah and learned the knot skills. (Becky, on the other hand, reportedly had no such experience as she did not have any sailing training in her background, so this would be additional evidence AGAINST Becky having suicided, not including the physical impossibility for Becky to have leaped over a 3-4 feet balcony and over a 3-4 feet high railing without disturbing dust on the railing or balcony floor, while her hands are wrapped with rope multiple times and tied behind her back, her ankles are also wrapped multiple times with heavy tugboat rope, a tight noose around her neck, a t-shirt wrapped around 3 times tightly around her neck AND stuffed down her throat -- how can anyone even breathe, let alone magically hop over a 3-4 feet wide balcony and over 3-4 feet high railing AND without leaving any DNA/prints on balcony/railing?).

Opportunity - Becky was killed sometime between 9:45pm Tues through Wed 3am. Dina has no alibi. Sheriff Gore stated at presser that the only thing they is that her cellphone "pinged in the vicinity of the hospital". Now, given that Dina herself claimed she was sitting vigil by Max's side at the hospital, how is it that only Jonah is captured on surveillance video at the hospital and Dina is not? Her cellphone may have pinged, but that would only mean her cellphone was physically at the vicinity of the hospital, not that Dina was. So where was Dina and why did she lie that she was sitting vigil by Max's bedside at the hospital?

IMO Dina has the strongest motive, means and opportunity to murder Becky, more than sufficient preponderance of circumstantial (if not direct) evidence to find her guilty.

The only problem with your analysis is that the elements of murder are not motive, means and opportunity. They are (1) the killing of another human, (2) with the level of intent required for the level of murder in question, (3) without any legal excuse/justification (e.g., self-defense).

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm sounding like a recorder now.

I believe there's a huge difference between giving opinions on forums such as WS where thousands of posters participate and where the primary purpose is one of entertainment versus someone like Dina independently hiring a high-priced legal team to do numerous public relations pressers and make live tv rounds on such "news" shows as Dr. Phil, Dr. Drew, etc. with the specific intent to finger-point at the Zahau sisters without any solid evidence while couching her accusations in opinion form and simultaneously asserting that she is a "scientist" whose "expert" opinions should count as more than the ordinary WS sleuther.

If we WS sleuthers did the same thing as Dina, I would also call it slander. Furthermore, the majority of us WS sleuthers sincerely want justice for all victims, and when we post, we don't use words such as "I"m a scientist" or "I'm a Dr" and therefore, I'm an expert and my opinions are worth more than other people's and should be equated with "scientific facts", nor do most of us WS posters assert that we have "irrefutable, incontrovertible, scientific evidence" when we give our opinions and speculations.

I think what Dina is doing is unethical, immoral, and just plain wrong, disgusting, and defamatory.

But let's get off this topic as we're going in circles. LOL

Hey, I think we're in agreement. If I said on WS, "I'm a scientist and I've done a scientific study of this and this study provides irrefutable, incontrovertible scientific evidence that Casey Anthony killed her daughter," then I'd better be prepared to back that up in a defamation suit. Dina hasn't quite said that about XZ yet. (Or about Rebecca, but again even if she did you can't sue for defamation of the dead.)

 

[time]

It's possible that the Zahaus could make it to trial, although IMO they would need a lot more evidence than this to win.

Thank you AZ. I would bet the attorneys have more circumstantial evidence.... not sure.

 

[*Lash*]

AZlawyer - thank you for your thoughts and opinions. I have a couple more questions if you don't mind answering.

1. Would Dina have any complications filing a wrongful death suit against XZ since she is a minor? What if any problems could arise solely based on XZ's minor status?

2. Dina alleged in an interview that Jonah has received RZ's file and she would like access to the file. Would Jonah receiving RZ's investigative file change the FOIA waiver exemption you have mentioned? Of course, this is coming from Dina and at this time there is nothing to prove Jonah actually received RZ's file.

TIA

 

[*Lash*]

I totally agree. Dina was likely coached by her lawyers on what exactly to say and how to phrase things so that she won't be prosecuted for slander.

Dina's been pushing the legal envelope to the limits, bordering on slander. I was just telling another poster that you can tell in the KTAR interview that Dina and her legal team most likely prompted the interviewer to specifically ask her opinion about who she thinks assaulted and caused the homicide of Max. I saw a glint in her eyes when he asked her the question. Then she hesitates, and repeats his question "Are you asking me my opinion" or "Are you asking me what I think"? (I only viewed the video once so I don't recall the exact wording but she said something to that effect). He nods. She then smiles wickedly and goes full charge into her accusatory "opinions" that it was Becky and/or her sister XZ.

It appeared that she was pretending that she didn't want to make accusations but was forced to do so on the spot by the interviewer's "impromptu, off-the-cuff" question. IMO, that is rehearsed B.S.

The interviewer Pat gave a quick disclaimer before he asked Dina's opinion, "Just your thinking, your thinking so there are no legal ramifications, who do you think killed Maxie?"

Dina's response, "I think someone in the house that day killed Max and there were only two people there in the house. Unfortunately Rebecca and her sister XZ. And one of them killed Max."


Video @ 5:15 -
http://ktar.com/59/1612172/Pats-Personal-Portraits-Dina-Shacknai-VIDEO

 

[*Lash*]

IMO, I would include JS in a wrongful death suit because 1) it was his home, 2) he gave Nina his car keys which likely included his house keys, and 3) it was a well-known fact that the back door to Spreckels was always open.

In my opinion, the problem with including Jonah would be proving that he had knowledge someone planned to murder Rebecca at his home. Proving JS intentionally gave Nina his keys and left the mansion door unlocked so Rebecca could be killed. If any of this did occur, someone would have to flip on Jonah and I don't see that happening.

 

[bourne]

The interviewer Pat gave a quick disclaimer before he asked Dina's opinion, "Just your thinking, your thinking so there are no legal ramifications, who do you think killed Maxie?"

Dina's response, "I think someone in the house that day killed Max and there were only two people there in the house. Unfortunately Rebecca and her sister XZ. And one of them killed Max."


Video @ 5:15 -
http://ktar.com/59/1612172/Pats-Personal-Portraits-Dina-Shacknai-VIDEO

Thanks for getting the precise wording in the interview, Lash! Definitely the interviewer and interviewee appear to be coached to avoid legal prosecution for slander. I think if the Zahaus can obtain proof that the interviewer was specifically instructed by Dina to give legal disclaimer and ask "Who do you think kill Max", that would give weight to the Zahaus as evidence that Dina is tampering with the legal process while clearly intending to slander the Zahaus.

Also, Dina stated, "And one of them killed Max". If one were to be a stickler for legal technicalities, Dina did NOT use the phrase "I think" or "In my opinion", so that is an outright accusation, not an opinion, and is slander.

But I think AZLawyer would say that Dina began her answers to the interviewer's Q's by using the phrase "I think", so we're supposed to assume that all of Dina's statements that follow are her opinions. Although, technically Dina had made an assertion and direct accusation, not an opinion when she stated, "And one of them killed Max".

 

[bourne]

AZlawyer - thank you for your thoughts and opinions. I have a couple more questions if you don't mind answering.

1. Would Dina have any complications filing a wrongful death suit against XZ since she is a minor? What if any problems could arise solely based on XZ's minor status?

2. Dina alleged in an interview that Jonah has received RZ's file and she would like access to the file. Would Jonah receiving RZ's investigative file change the FOIA waiver exemption you have mentioned? Of course, this is coming from Dina and at this time there is nothing to prove Jonah actually received RZ's file.

TIA

Also, as corollary I'd like to ask:

3) Can the plaintiff in a wrongful death suit file against multiple defendants with ONE lawsuit? Or must they file against each defendant separately?

 

[bourne]

The only problem with your analysis is that the elements of murder are not motive, means and opportunity. They are (1) the killing of another human, (2) with the level of intent required for the level of murder in question, (3) without any legal excuse/justification (e.g., self-defense).

BBM I take it you mean the elements needed to prove wrongful death in civil suit are different than the elements needed to prove murder in criminal trial? It's my understanding that in a wrongful death suit, the elements needed to prove wrongful death are slightly different (proving negligence rather than actual murder) and much easier to prove as the bar to prove guilt is much, much lower. Only "a preponderance of evidence" is needed in wrongful death vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt" in murder.

"There are four main elements of a wrongful death claim and if one of the four is not met the claim will not stand up in a court of law. The four elements are:
1) that the death was caused by another person;
2) the death occurred as a result of the other person’s negligence;
3) the death that occurred is affecting a surviving spouse, child, or other beneficiaries of the victim and
4) the death must have resulted in some form of monetary damages."

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/wrongful-death/how-file-a-wrongful-death-claim.htm


So the motive, means, and opportunity I gave in the hypothetical example far exceeds the elements that are needed to prove guilt in wrongful death. I don't see anything problematic about it.

 

[bourne]

In wrongful death suit, all the plaintiff needs a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not, greater than 50%) that the defendant is guilty of causing the death of victim. In this case, if Zahaus sue -- let's hypothesize, they sue Dina -- the Zahaus would be the plaintiffs, and Dina would be the defendant.

The elements of murder:
1) Motive
2) Means
3) Opportunity

Motive - Dina clearly has motive, as does any parent whose child is critically injured and in a coma. Motive is a strong one -- vengeance for injured child.

Means - Becky was tied up with special knots, and a stabilizing rope arrangement was made around foot of bed. Becky's hands were bound with tugboat rope behind her back, and her ankles were bound with same type of rope. A noose was also tied around Becky's neck using same rope. Dina and Nina reportedly know how to tie such knots because they grew up with a Navy father who also owned a moving company which used the stabilizing rope arrangement for furniture moves, and they both frequently sailed with their family and Jonah and learned the knot skills. (Becky, on the other hand, reportedly had no such experience as she did not have any sailing training in her background, so this would be additional evidence AGAINST Becky having suicided, not including the physical impossibility for Becky to have leaped over a 3-4 feet balcony and over a 3-4 feet high railing without disturbing dust on the railing or balcony floor, while her hands are wrapped with rope multiple times and tied behind her back, her ankles are also wrapped multiple times with heavy tugboat rope, a tight noose around her neck, a t-shirt wrapped around 3 times tightly around her neck AND stuffed down her throat -- how can anyone even breathe, let alone magically hop over a 3-4 feet wide balcony and over 3-4 feet high railing AND without leaving any DNA/prints on balcony/railing?).

Opportunity - Becky was killed sometime between 9:45pm Tues through Wed 3am. Dina has no alibi. Sheriff Gore stated at presser that the only thing they is that her cellphone "pinged in the vicinity of the hospital". Now, given that Dina herself claimed she was sitting vigil by Max's side at the hospital, how is it that only Jonah is captured on surveillance video at the hospital and Dina is not? Her cellphone may have pinged, but that would only mean her cellphone was physically at the vicinity of the hospital, not that Dina was. So where was Dina and why did she lie that she was sitting vigil by Max's bedside at the hospital?

IMO Dina has the strongest motive, means and opportunity to murder Becky, more than sufficient preponderance of circumstantial (if not direct) evidence to find her guilty.

I wanted to add to my Opportunity evidence:
1) Dina was physically seen by impartial, independent eyewitnesses at the Spreckels mansion the night of Becky's death. A family happened to be biking by the mansion that night and identified Dina as the person carrying a large black purse and acting bizarrely at the mansion.*

2) Sometime after Dina was seen by eyewitnesses at the mansion, two separate independent ear-witnesses heard a woman screaming for help.

*NOTE: Nina (Dina's fraternal twin) had come forward claiming she was the person the eyewitnesses saw the night around Becky's death. (Hear her audio on CBS8 interview).

IMO, if the Zahaus go forward in a wrongful death suit, they should include both Dina and Nina as defendants.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer - thank you for your thoughts and opinions. I have a couple more questions if you don't mind answering.

1. Would Dina have any complications filing a wrongful death suit against XZ since she is a minor? What if any problems could arise solely based on XZ's minor status?

2. Dina alleged in an interview that Jonah has received RZ's file and she would like access to the file. Would Jonah receiving RZ's investigative file change the FOIA waiver exemption you have mentioned? Of course, this is coming from Dina and at this time there is nothing to prove Jonah actually received RZ's file.

TIA

1. No, there would be no major issues. Someone would have to be appointed to represent her interests--probably a parent.

2. I didn't mention any FOIA waiver exemption, but I think another lawyer did. I haven't researched that issue. That said, if the release to RZ's family was supposedly based upon an exemption for victims only, I could see that the same exemption might apply to Jonah. He is a victim of RZ's death--it was his girlfriend that was killed, in his home. So I don't think a release to him would mean that everyone in the world is now entitled to the file.

 

[AZlawyer]

In my opinion, the problem with including Jonah would be proving that he had knowledge someone planned to murder Rebecca at his home. Proving JS intentionally gave Nina his keys and left the mansion door unlocked so Rebecca could be killed. If any of this did occur, someone would have to flip on Jonah and I don't see that happening.

You wouldn't have to prove that he acted intentionally--just negligently.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks for getting the precise wording in the interview, Lash! Definitely the interviewer and interviewee appear to be coached to avoid legal prosecution for slander. I think if the Zahaus can obtain proof that the interviewer was specifically instructed by Dina to give legal disclaimer and ask "Who do you think kill Max", that would give weight to the Zahaus as evidence that Dina is tampering with the legal process while clearly intending to slander the Zahaus.

Also, Dina stated, "And one of them killed Max". If one were to be a stickler for legal technicalities, Dina did NOT use the phrase "I think" or "In my opinion", so that is an outright accusation, not an opinion, and is slander.

But I think AZLawyer would say that Dina began her answers to the interviewer's Q's by using the phrase "I think", so we're supposed to assume that all of Dina's statements that follow are her opinions. Although, technically Dina had made an assertion and direct accusation, not an opinion when she stated, "And one of them killed Max".

Skating close to the legal line is not tampering with anything, and intending to get the effects of slander without actually doing it is not actionable. The "I think" announces an opinion, and she's responding to a question asking for her opinion, so no one is going to much care where the person who transcribes the opinion chooses to put the periods.

The point is that she is awfully close to the line, assuming that XZ had nothing to do with this. But she hasn't crossed it yet.

And when she says "Rebecca OR her sister," it gets her even further away from that line, because Rebecca's family can't sue for defamation of her character after she's dead.

 

[AZlawyer]

Also, as corollary I'd like to ask:

3) Can the plaintiff in a wrongful death suit file against multiple defendants with ONE lawsuit? Or must they file against each defendant separately?

The plaintiff can include multiple defendants in one suit. Actually, they have to do it that way.

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM I take it you mean the elements needed to prove wrongful death in civil suit are different than the elements needed to prove murder in criminal trial? It's my understanding that in a wrongful death suit, the elements needed to prove wrongful death are slightly different (proving negligence rather than actual murder) and much easier to prove as the bar to prove guilt is much, much lower. Only "a preponderance of evidence" is needed in wrongful death vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt" in murder.

"There are four main elements of a wrongful death claim and if one of the four is not met the claim will not stand up in a court of law. The four elements are:
1) that the death was caused by another person;
2) the death occurred as a result of the other person’s negligence;
3) the death that occurred is affecting a surviving spouse, child, or other beneficiaries of the victim and
4) the death must have resulted in some form of monetary damages."

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/wrongful-death/how-file-a-wrongful-death-claim.htm


So the motive, means, and opportunity I gave in the hypothetical example far exceeds the elements that are needed to prove guilt in wrongful death. I don't see anything problematic about it.

BBM
No, no, sorry. I wasn't talking about the elements of wrongful death at all. You said that motive, means and opportunity were the elements of murder, and I pointed out that those were not the elements of murder.

Wrongful death is indeed MUCH easier to prove than murder, and indeed does not require any showing of intent. The elements you listed should be correct unless CAL law is very unusual in this regard.

Proving motive, means and opportunity, however, would not come close to proving wrongful death in a case like this. You would have to prove that the alleged perp actually DID do something to cause Rebecca's death. Motive, means and opportunity are not enough. Now, of course, you could use other circumstantial evidence to prove the perp killed Rebecca--like DNA on the rope, evidence that the perp lied/covered up evidence placing him/her at the scene, etc.

Think of it like a murder mystery. A good murder mystery includes at least TWO people with motive, means and opportunity. But only one committed the murder. A judge will kick out the case before trial if ALL you have is motive, means and opportunity. MM&O just gets you onto the list of suspects.

 

[bourne]

BBM
No, no, sorry. I wasn't talking about the elements of wrongful death at all. You said that motive, means and opportunity were the elements of murder, and I pointed out that those were not the elements of murder.

Wrongful death is indeed MUCH easier to prove than murder, and indeed does not require any showing of intent. The elements you listed should be correct unless CAL law is very unusual in this regard.

Proving motive, means and opportunity, however, would not come close to proving wrongful death in a case like this. You would have to prove that the alleged perp actually DID do something to cause Rebecca's death. Motive, means and opportunity are not enough. Now, of course, you could use other circumstantial evidence to prove the perp killed Rebecca--like DNA on the rope, evidence that the perp lied/covered up evidence placing him/her at the scene, etc.

Think of it like a murder mystery. A good murder mystery includes at least TWO people with motive, means and opportunity. But only one committed the murder. A judge will kick out the case before trial if ALL you have is motive, means and opportunity. MM&O just gets you onto the list of suspects.

I was telling someone that the element of intent is not used to prove "murder" in criminal cases for certain states. But the elements of opportunity and means still are. Also, I think it is obvious that you need evidence to prove a case.

From what I've read, negligent and probable proximate behavior of the defendant is sufficient for guilt in a wrongful death suit. E.g., if it is found that more likely than not Dina and/or Nina did something to Becky, and she died as a result of their proximate behaviors, then that is sufficient for "proof" in wrongful death.

Yep, circumstantial as well as direct evidence would come into play here. I think everything taken together (e.g., eyewitnesses placing Dina at the crime scene as well as Nina coming forward stating she was indeed physically present at the mansion, as well as the physical impossibility of the suicide -- Becky could not have physically accomplished the feat of hurling herself off the balcony all bound and gagged without making any prints/DNA on balcony, etc.) makes for a very strong case that more likely than not, Becky was murdered and that someone who was physically at the crime scene during Becky's time of death did something to cause her death.

AZLawyer, I hope you don't mind my asking. What law specialty are you in?

 

[bourne]

I did some research into defamation and found this:

"1. False Statement of Fact

Truth is an absolute defense to a claim for defamation. No one can prevent you from telling the truth, even if that truth harms someone else. Further, the statement of an opinion generally will not constitute defamation, since it is not offered as a statement of fact. For example, if a food critic states that a restaurant serves horrible food, that is not defamation since taste will always be an opinion. Even if the restaurant brought 100 witnesses to court to attest that the food is wonderful, the critic is still entitled to his opinion.

On the other hand, some believe that they can escape liability by casting a fact as an opinion. A number of clients have come to us for a second opinion after another attorney has told them a statement is not defamatory because it was stated as an opinion. Adding the word "opinion" to a defamatory statement does not automatically shield the speaker from liability. The determining factor is whether the "opinion" is about a verifiable fact. For example, as stated above, a food critic is protected when he offers his opinion about the food, but if he says, "in my opinion the food was horrible and the restaurant has rats," the statement about rats is defamation (assuming it is false) because it is a verifiable fact. Similarly, "in my opinion, he cheats on his taxes" is a defamatory statement since it is the assertion of a fact, even though it is called an opinion.

Context is everything in determining whether the speaker was offering the statement as a verifiable fact. We once received a call from someone who was checking out at a local supermarket, and tried to pay with a Discover card. The cashier said the store didn't accept that credit card, and when the customer said he had always paid with his Discover card, the cashier rudely responded, "You're crazy; I've been here ten years and we have never taken Discover cards." The thin-skinned caller wanted to sue for defamation because she had accused him of being crazy in front of the other people in line. Clearly the statement was not intended as a verifiable fact. The cashier was not saying, "you are suffering from a mental illness that would be verified by an examination from an appropriate mental health professional." She was just expressing in a colorful, albeit rude, manner that he was mistaken about the Discover cards.

In determining whether a statement is true or false, you must also examine how the statement is made. If a newspaper reports that Joe Dokes was arrested and charged with murder, and it is later determined that Joe Dokes was innocent, that does not mean that the newspaper is now liable for defamation. What the newspaper reported was absolutely true -- he was arrested and charged with murder.

Similarly, the statement must be viewed in context. Upon learning that you and your spouse make it a point to go on a "date night" every week, Dr. Laura calls you "bad parents" on the radio because she feels that parents should never leave their children with a babysitter. You could not sue for defamation, because she is entitled to believe and say that such conduct constitutes bad parenting. In one Internet defamation case, a court held that calling someone a liar was not defamatory when the circumstances made clear that the speaker did not have sufficient facts to reach that conclusion."

"Your reputation is priceless

Whether you respond with just a letter or go to a full blown lawsuit, you should never allow a defamatory statement to go unchallenged. Silence is perceived as acceptance. If you did nothing about what was being said about you, it must be true. The goal in a defamation action can be to recover damages, but often that is not the primary goal. The priceless value of a defamation action is to gain back your reputation. When someone says to you, "but didn't I hear or read somewhere that you [fill in the blank]?", you can answer, "yes, someone was spreading that lie, but I sued him and he was found liable for defamation and had to pay me damages."

http://www.toplawfirm.com/whatisdefamation.html

~~~~~
Therefore, I think a strong defamation case can be made if all statements made by Dina were taken in their totality, and thoroughly assessed with the above legal criteria in mind.