Some Practical Perspective On Libel And Slander

There is often little virtue or merit to stating the obvious. We don’t need to be informed water is wet. We already know, even though it’s certainly true.
But when the truth is so extraordinary that it seems implausible, and when that implausibility is compounded by potentially mortal danger in our midst, precisely telling the truth might be mistaken for libel or slander, not for insensible reason. By the 1640’s Franciscan friar William of Ockham introduced a simple but practical tool, Ockham’s Razor. It is commonly applied in modern science, often taught in medical school to help MD’s expedite diagnosis.

Ock·ham’s razor:
the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable – AHD®

Thus a sensible person might acquaint with the implausible facts of McCaig’s multi-year human life threatening crime spree and feel skepticism is justified. It may surely seem most implausible to those unfamiliar with the neighborhood since James W. McCaig arrived.
McCaig.Info is not based on plausibility. It’s a forum for public safety information, with factual accounts that may seem most implausible, even libelous. The evidence, much of it in date-stamped, time-stamped 1080HD video leaves no doubt. Implausible? I think so. True? I know so. I am eye witness to it, and victim of it. I’m also the cameraman, and the bicyclist.

What determines libel or slander is not the vexation of criminals party to it and disgraced, shamed by it, but infidelity to truth in reporting it.

The intention with this preemptive Libel And Slander topic is to deflect dismissive claims that McCaig’s victim is naïve, or is blindsided by aggressive response to McCaig.Info content. Not only not blindsided, I have been preparing for it for years. The date and time stamps on this post should precede contradiction and protest.

Those party to this disgraceful conspiracy have little to be proud of. It’s quite possible since the co-conspirators in and out of government can’t unring the bell, they may simply attempt to silence the truth for which there is so, so much evidence.

We have an easy “sanity check” here at McCaig.Info

If there is any malicious falsehood disclosed here, the law provides powerful even punitive tools for remedy. None the less utmost care has been taken to insure fidelity to truth at McCaig.Info
If McCaig takes issue with accounts posted here, I vehemently urge McCaig or other legitimate authority to cite the precise words perceived or alleged to be in error, and offer a clarification, revision, or correction.
If any of McCaig’s government accessories wishes to challenge any content posted here the same highest journalistic standard applies. Your feedback is also most welcome, but all such feedback will be considered for publication at McCaig.Info in the interest of public safety.

li·bel (lībəl)n.1.a. The legally indefensible publication or broadcast of words or images that are degrading to a person or injurious to that person’s reputation.b. An incidence of such publication or broadcast.2. The written claims initiating a suit in an admiralty court.tr.v. li·beled, li·bel·ing, li·bels or li·belled, li·bel·ling, li·belsTo publish or broadcast a libel about (a person). See Synonyms at malign.[Middle English, litigant’s written complaint, from Old French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber, book.]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

slan·der (slăndər)n.1. Law Oral communication of false and malicious statements that damage the reputation of another.2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.v. slan·dered, slan·der·ing, slan·dersv.tr.To utter a slander about. See Synonyms at malign.v.intr.To utter or spread slander.[Middle English slaundre, from Old French esclandre, alteration of escandle, from Latin scandalum, cause of offense, stumbling block; see SCANDAL.]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

Please note: contradiction is not refutation. And peeve based on delicate emotion rather than fact does not justify murder.

If no such clarifications or corrections are received I shall interpret that as tacit corroboration that the facts disclosed at this domain, however astounding, are deemed accurate by our neighbors in general, and by McCaig in particular, and that this evidence does not need clarification, correction, refutation or dispute.