When one names a web site so and sucks .com then they are obviously coming from a standpoint intent on malice. Adding to that that the blogger in this case has also been regularly accusing someone of a crime they have never even been indicted on she in no way should be considered a journalist.
The bar for "actual malice" is significantly higher than "has a grudge against". The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant made statements knowing that they were false, or made statements with reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, being mean was more important that being right.
If you are right or have good reason to believe that you are right, then it's not defamation to be mad and try to make your thoughts known.
Additionally, the fact that someone has not yet been charged or indicted can never be used as evidence that they are innocent or not guilty.
If that bar was met in this case, then -- as you say -- regardless of journalistic status you've done something wrong.