>>1398027Karl lost because his attorney was straight up incompetent. The thing about defamation being so hard to win is that Mitchell had to prove not only that Karl lied, but also he did intentionally, which Karl obviously didn't. Karl was vindictive, and even reckless, but he had proof of why he came to that stupid wrong assumption (tldr; people inside Mitchell's circle gave false testimony), but Karl's stupid attorney instead of laying the foundations of due diligence during pretrials, decided to double down on the whole "Mitchell is a bad guy and a liar and already had a bad reputation" argument. Too bad for Karl the justice court doesn't work like on the internet; you can't shit talk your opponent to victory, you have to actually address the content of the accusation. So, in the end, Mitchell's assertion went though completely uncontested, which in practical terms means nearly the same as assuming guilty, giving Mitchell the victory on a silver plate. If I were Karl I would appeal the verdict based on inadequate legal representation.
And of course, Karl still doing videos, giving interviews and posting on social media, throughout the whole trial, instead of shut the fuck up, didn't make him any favors either.
