Hacker News Reader

Comment by xienze | Hacker News Reader

> It says right there that IAC confirmed he sent the messages.

I would call it CYA. All they submitted to the court was screen captures of iMessage, so presumably the company saw the same thing. They felt compelled to comment on that, that's fine. But to me, sorry, screen captures of iMessage aren't good enough. That can easily be faked with you and a friend sending over-the-top messages to each other. I would want to see phone company records.

View on HN

By signing the pleading, Ms. Wolfe's attorneys are certifying that they have made "an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" and believe "the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." [1]

While it's certainly possible that the evidence included in the pleading is manufactured, her lawyers have staked their own reputation and careers on the evidence not being obviously fake.

[1] California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7

Just curious, does anyone want to argue the point about the texts being relatively flimsy evidence or just downvote? I guess that's what passes for debate these days.

Why would a large holding company like IAC do something as stupid as fake messages in a legal deposition? What you're suggesting is highly unlikely, and would have absolutely no potential payoff for IAC. Your comment comes off as completely off-topic.

Where did I say the company faked the messages? They were clearly sent to her.

Do you have any evidence that Ms. Wolfe has committed a felony or is making an unsubstantiated accusation of perjury what you consider "debate"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com