Not only was that rejected, the defendant in this case, the Minister, wrote and said, "If the case proceeds, I will plead truth," which, as any defamation experts watching will know, means, actually, at trial, the defendant will lead evidence to prove that what he said—and in relation to this it's about rape—was correct and true. I say again, let's bear in mind that the defendant knew within 24 hours. So why, then, was there an exchange of legal letters in which the defendant intended to prove truth, knowing it was wrong? Because that's the point: knowing it was wrong, there was an exchange of letters in which the defendant said he would prove truth. Why did he say he would do so vigorously, and put the reputation of the plaintiff at trial? 