[SoCalCoug]

Here's the biggest problem I have with the discussion of this situation.

Over and over, (like with the baseball player and his Bishop debacle) I hear that someone's side of a story must be discounted simply because "we only have one side of the story."

You know what they call one side of the story in my line of work? Evidence.

I'm going to try this at my next court hearing.

"Your honor, my client does not wish to present her story. Furthermore, because the opposing party has only presented one side, and you therefore have only one side of the story, you should not give it any weight, because you don't have both sides of the story."

If one party in a controversy chooses (for whatever reason, valid or not) not to share their side, why should the unstated version be automatically given more credence than the stated version?

If you go to court with an uncontradicted story, chances are the court's going to find in your favor. The court's not going to speculate about what the other side would say if they had chosen to participate.

Why should the court of public opinion be stricter about that than a court of law?