What an im- be-ci-le!!!!! What conscience is he talking about sef? Ba-s ta-rd Judge...but how can he still be on the bench??!!!

Indeed frighteningly sordid what sort of conscience yours must be! In all the circumstances one is irressistibly drawn to the conclusion your conscience must be seared as with a hot iron! Little wonder who read the speech at your valedictory session! Now we know better! Indeed true that "birds of identical plumage conglomerate at close proximity"!

kulutempa:


IT Bomb thanks for your question. I really have to say that your question has made it even clearer that the Judge was compromised. An inference is defined as a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial. It is the same as saying that there is no smoke without fire. Basically it means a fact which is proved by presenting other facts, which then leads to only one reasonable conclusion. For example if A is in charge of a bank account, and makes a payment into B's bank account and the same payment is then made to C's bank account there is an inference that the payment must have originated from A's bank account and he cannot therefore deny that he was the source of the payment to C because he did not pay him directly. Where the Judge put his foot into his mouth is that establishing a prima facie case against a Defendant is more often than not all about drawing inferences on the available evidence which lead to the conclusion that the Defendant has a case to answer. It is after such inferences are drawn and a prima facie case established that the case then goes to trial and the issue of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt arises. As far as I am aware, there is no need to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt at the prima facie stage. The judge should go back to Law School.

He knew what he was into all the while! You know who read the speech at his valedictory? Rickey Tarfa!