Answer and Explanation:
1. Prosecutors may claim that the inaccurate report to which Rachel had access could induce misinterpretation on her part and that, in any case, Peter was already on the police for vandalism, which contributed to Rachel's conclusion. These justifications would not be successful, because Rachel had many ways to find out what actually happened to Peter.
2. Peter would sue Rachel for defamation and would likely succeed, as he has several witnesses that Rachel released incorrect information and that it affects his reputation.
3. The current malice is necessary in this case because Peter is a very well-known and popular person, and it is important that the current malice is inserted in the case, to speed up the process.
4. The fair report privilege can be used to protect Rachel, since the false information about Peter that she exposed, had as its only source a public document that induced her to publish the defamation.
