The premise of this article is that, as far as the facts of the case are concerned, an unusual, even uncommon sense situation did occur, but there is insufficient evidence to prove it. And the other party also insisted on denying it, and even directly said that you were forging and making it up. The judge is also skeptical about what you say, and it is incomprehensible. Even you feel like you've fallen into the Yellow River, and the more you feel blackened.
For example, in a loan case, the normal situation is that A borrows money from B, A issues an IOU to B, and after A repays B, B returns the IOU to A or tears up the IOU in the presence of both parties.
Then there is a specific loan case, A says that the money has been repaid, and there is a transfer record, but the IOU is at B, and B says that it has not been repaid. How does A explain this, A says that he has forgotten, and the judge generally does not believe it, because it is too abnormal; When A says to repay the money, B says that the IOU is lost, A believes it, and the judge may believe it; A said that B had forgotten to bring it, and A thought it was okay and didn't ask for it again, and the judge might have believed it. In short, depending on the circumstances of the case, A's statements are varied. Combined with the judge's understanding of the burden of proof after the claims of both parties, what leads to the judgment of this kind of case in reality, there is a high probability that both sides will be advantageous. But for this A, no matter what you say, it is not as good as the effect of the IOU not being at B. As for A's approach when repaying the loan, even if he doesn't see the IOU, A should at least ask B to issue a receipt.
Summary: Risk prevention must have arithmetic thinking and cannot be missing. Otherwise, once an abnormal situation occurs, no matter how hard you try, it will be difficult to completely make up for it.