I think that is a very good question. I know that is a plaintiff/Novak claim, but I don't know its supporting evidence. The detective's legal vulnerability ma

I think that is a very good question. I know that is a plaintiff/Novak claim, but I don't know its supporting evidence. The detective's legal vulnerability may rely on the transcript of his exact testimony both to the grand jury and at trial. It could be that, at the grand jury, he almost defined parody in two parts - with one part easily quoted out of context. "Oh, erm, what I meant was the complainers said 'at first I thought it was honest to god real' and then 'I figured out it was a parody'". It could also be the detective only mentioned the first part (people being confused) at the grand jury and the full story only at trial which is more sketchy/makes him more legally vulnerable (but IANAL).