>>13101805actually yes, they will add it as evidence since its a civil case. Just because its accepted as evidence doesnt make it 100% waterproof.
>So how might you authenticate a text message? Text messages are typically authenticated using circumstantial evidence showing that the cell phone from which the text message was retrieved belonged to the person who allegedly sent the text message.Basically her just having a conversation with a "Vince" is enough for a judge to go "Ok this might be relevant to the case and it seems to be authentic". Its a civil case, not a criminal one, so if one party lies with their evidence has yet to be determined.
HOWEVER, its pretty stupid to fake something like this. If it gets so far that the court has to subpoena the service providers if Vince goes "Nope, these are not real", and it turns out to fake: she is boned. Not only will her case crumble like corn bread, she will also will be charged with forging evidence. And if the lawyer knew it was forged, he could be charged with perjury. So Im going to hope its legit, because the cons far outweight the pros, Im just telling you that assuming all evidence is legit just because it was accepted in a civil court case is a folly.
Im gonna tamper my excitement for this whole shitshow, since as long as vince neither confirmed or denied the evidence, we as onlookers are currently looking at Schrödinger's Evidence.
