[erso]

I'm curious to know if, were the tweets to be used, they would also have to prove it was he that made them. Sure, they're from his account, but would that hold up in court? See: the many celebrities who have people tweet on their behalf with their (the celebrities') account.

[larrys]

Ianal, but in a deposition he would be asked whether they were his tweets or not.

If he denied they were, he would be asked further questions and possibly caught in a lie. Such as "is this the only time that your account has been used by someone other than yourself?" or "So you are saying that this is the only tweet that you didn't make but the others before and after you did". And so on. My guess is that he would be advised to tell the truth to prevent getting further trapped as far as his credibility. There may also be other people that he discussed the tweets with that could be brought into the picture as well under oath in court I'm guessing. Bottom line: Denial is easier said than done.

[danielweber]

To add on, some attorneys spend their whole lives tearing apart people who lie. Unless you are professional psychopath, you are completely outclassed here.

[larrys]

Agree. Would also add that if you lie infrequently you are probably not prepared to know all the potential pitfalls of lying and how the other person can tear you a new one if you want to call it that.

Additionally I've noticed a loose correlation between people who lie and who their parents are or how they were raised. Nothing scientific of course, but people whose parents don't hold their feet to the flame are generally more likely to think that they can get away with something because "the other guy is stupid". People whose parents are either very intelligent or hold them on everything they say are generally more practiced at thinking of the various possibilities that can come about to refute something they would say.

[Hansi]

Couldn't the same be said about e-mail? Which does hold up in court.

[namenotrequired]

The same question can be asked, yes.