An interesting case to be tried on free speech vs. unsubstantiated claims that may or may not be slander:
Journalist/writer Anabel Hernández, author of Señores del Narco, is facing a claim from former Attorney general and former head of the federal electoral institute of slanderous, false accusations.
Her book, among many other (and far more explosive claims), suggests Carpizo nabbed a big sum of money set aside for the hunt against El Chapo Guzmán. Yet the problem is only this: There seems to be very little concrete evidence for this rather incendiary claim, at least as offered in this book.
It is an interesting case as it raises some complicated yet crucial issues: To what an extent can a journalist really rely on what appears to be the lack of clear and concrete evidence, in order to make very strong accusations against public figures? I haven't read her book, so I have no idea of the merits of these claims, but reading an excerpt in Proceso this truly struck me as very sensationalist work, which, if it had the evidence to back up its many other claims, should really have made an impact on the political scene. And I don't think it has.
On principle I think the bar should be set very, very high for what a public official will have to endure. Yet should there be no limits at all on what s/he can be accused of, especially if, it appears, the evidence is very thin?
I am trying to put myself in the shoes of Carpizo, who I think is generally pretty well regarded. If he never took any of this money, he would naturally be interested in clearing his name - and, for good and for bad, it seems the burden is on him to prove his innocence - and how would he do this except by suing Hernández?
Perhaps he was dirty, but it seems to me when you make a very concrete claim, you should have some matching concrete evidence. I would be very interested in opinions from others familiar with her work and the case, in particular as I may well be wrong here.