4 ms·

I am not a lawyer. One of the ways a suit can be dismissed is if the judge determines that even if all of your side's evidence is accepted purely on its face,

I am not a lawyer. One of the ways a suit can be dismissed is if the judge determines that even if all of your side's evidence is accepted purely on its face, the result is not evidence of an actionable case. This is exactly to prevent it from being the case that you can get in front of a jury and say, "Well, I don't actually have evidence for my case, but look what a terrible person the respondent is," and making an appeal to emotion. Of course, this is all human judgment, lines are fuzzy, and you can't predict any given case. But it's supposed to be that you have to show preponderance of evidence of something that is a valid reason to sue, not, like, preponderance of evidence that the respondent is a slimeball and it seems plausible that his character is such that he might have done something that you have no evidence of.

CPLX 9y ago
Yeah sure. But the stuff in this report is evidence. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how actual litigation works, but it's not always the case that you have crystal clear surveillance video of something or "I did the bad things" written in a recovered email. You have to decide what the most plausible version of events is given the preponderance of the evidence. You have to use what you can see to decide the most likely scenario that you can't see. All this deleting end hiding things is evidence of bad acts, it speaks to the behavior and intent of the people in question, and it's entirely and thoroughly inconsistent with the actions of someone who was behaving ethically. People talk about circumstantial evidence like it's a "gotcha" that means there's no real evidence. That's a common fallacy. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. And activity consistent with a cover up is in fact evidence that supports allegations of underlying bad behavior. The legal system isn't a computer program, it uses people and their judgement and intuition about human behavior to figure things out. That's by design.

CPLX 9y ago

Yeah sure. But the stuff in this report is evidence. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how actual litigation works, but it's not always the case that you have crystal clear surveillance video of something or "I did the bad things" written in a recovered email. You have to decide what the most plausible version of events is given the preponderance of the evidence. You have to use what you can see to decide the most likely scenario that you can't see. All this deleting end hiding things is evidence of bad acts, it speaks to the behavior and intent of the people in question, and it's entirely and thoroughly inconsistent with the actions of someone who was behaving ethically. People talk about circumstantial evidence like it's a "gotcha" that means there's no real evidence. That's a common fallacy. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. And activity consistent with a cover up is in fact evidence that supports allegations of underlying bad behavior. The legal system isn't a computer program, it uses people and their judgement and intuition about human behavior to figure things out. That's by design.