I heard this mentioned a lot in court, now I can safely confirm, it means this:
The Wikipedia definition of this is as follows:
The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.”
In basic terms this means, if you bring the case to court, it’s your case and you need to prove what you are claiming. The court or tribunal will decide if your beliefs are right. So bearing this in mind I decided only to depend on what I could prove by fact – not fiction and NOT with what, ‘ he said, she said,’ scenarios. Pure fact or almost pure is what is needed. It was said to me sometimes you just need that 1% more than 50%, so that would be 51% in total, in the absence of pure proof from the other side, (the defendant) to gain the judges belief and establish a clear element of proof.
I did not lie (I know outrage, but sometimes under pressure people do), I did not inflate or deflate the facts to my advantage either, as I thought this will go against me. Equally when I felt the defendant was doing this, I noted it down – remember that Blue Book! My chance to use this came later.I had also leant how to be a very good listener.
Another useful point to remember is that although you think everything is relevant in this case, because it is about you, sadly not everything is relevant – picking and choosing what was relevant and making the decisions alone was hard for me, really hard. As I knew if I chose the wrong thing it could potentially ruin my possibilities of winning. See my next blog entry to see …