> What about he whole "Gawker lost the trial" part?

Nothing. What's your point? As I said, JURIES aren't infallible.

The prosecutors lost the case against OJ simpson. What's your point?

> That seems to be rather neglected in this explanation...

No. The point is that someone who had NOTHING to do with the hogan case decided to inject themselves and use their money to bankrupt a company.

Okay?

The way they "injected themselves" into the case was by funding the legal fees. Gawker lost in a court of law. If your contention is that the jury was wrong, then your issue should be with the court system, not with the fact that someone paid to take Gawker to court.

Gawker had a fair trial in a US court of law and it lost. If that didn't happen it couldn't go out of business.