It has been held in a US case that allegations made in comments on blog posts are not sufficiently reliable to be used in cross-examination. In this case an expert was testifying in a product liability case that the defendant’s products had never caught fire before (as the plaintiff’s had). The plaintiff’s counsel wanted to point to a number of comments in blogs about fires in some of the same manufacturer’s products. The court denied the right to use those examples.
Is that right? How much reliability do you need? Are blog comments the cross-examiner’s Wikipedia? (It was not suggested that the comments had been inserted by or on behalf of the plaintiff…)