LogFAQs > #973628739

videospirit posted...

her lawyer has risked her career vouching for it

After 2020, "faking shit for the court would risk their career" isn't the high threshold it used to be. There weren't remotely enough disbarments for that kind of behavior, and that was a huge example.

If the courts don't care enough for the huge examples, can we trust they'll care enough over the small examples?

I'm not saying the lawyer is lying. I'm not. But my threshold for feeling comfortable with saying, "That receipt is legitimate," has to be verification from CitiBike that's been vouched for by an independent third party that has no dog in the fight (like some journalistic outlet).

The lawyer has a receipt. Cool. Until it's presented to a court, it could just be a bluff to provoke a reaction from the guys in the video and catch them in a public a-ha moment. Could be a bluff to make someone settle for defamation without needing to go to court to present it as evidence.

But lawyer having a receipt is not proof that the woman is in the right. And the guys not providing their own receipt doesn't prove they're wrong.

There is no concrete corroboration or debunking of anyone's story based solely on "lawyer has a receipt." Granted, it's entirely probable her story is correct if she has a document and a lawyer. I can allow for that. I can't allow that it's a given her story is correct like some people are asserting.