Well, testimony can give context to evidence. The judge can infer a lot from what they won’t say.
These people aren’t secretaries or interns. They are top executives and they can’t seem to recall any of their duties that went into these evaluations. The judge is at least able to glean that they are incompetent and fraudulent when deciding damages.
As far as I know, the judge can directly compare the evidence to testimony and use it as part of the ruling.
So since she isn’t providing anything to refute the evidence, the evidence is accepted as is?
Well, testimony can give context to evidence. The judge can infer a lot from what they won’t say.
These people aren’t secretaries or interns. They are top executives and they can’t seem to recall any of their duties that went into these evaluations. The judge is at least able to glean that they are incompetent and fraudulent when deciding damages.