3 ms·

When dealing with social conflicts, there is very rarely "proof", just evidence In courts of law, digital tapes have been frequently used as evidence.

• exe34 2y ago
  The thing about evidence is that it can be contested. I imagine that in the cases you refer to, one side presented them as evidence and the other side said oh bugger, you got me. If they had reason to believe the audio had been tempered with, or entirely fabricated, they would then bring expert witnesses and eventually the other side would have to offer more evidence that it was not tampered - often this sort of thing comes down to "under oath, I swear I recorded this at the date/time and the subject on the tape is $name". This might not be enough to convict or exonerate, but it'll then count as part of the case.
  • close04 2y ago
    > The thing about evidence is that it can be contested. The danger is in the court of public opinion where just having the conversation is damage enough. If you have to go out there and fight it then you give it even more visibility and it takes your focus and resources away from more useful activities. At the end of the day many people only remember the accusation, not what comes after.
    • exe34 2y ago
      > At the end of the day many people only remember the accusation, not what comes after. Never a better time to learn the dichotomy of control. What is in your control is your thoughts and your actions. Outside of your control are: you body, your reputation, your wealth, you health, etc. It matters what you choose to do, but the outcomes are out of your control.
• bo1024 2y ago
  One thing that surprised me, as a juror, was that nobody ever simply submitted a piece of evidence. Each of the hundreds of exhibits was presented with a person on the stand attesting to its provenance, under penalty of perjury.