So you agree then? I did not say a judge should propose any evidence.
Perhaps it's easiest to explain with an example.
Let's say the defence argues for A, and prosecution argues for B. The prosecution shows that the probability of A being true is 1%. The judge can not take that as a B having a probability of 99%, since it may be that C is true.
Thus the judge requires prosecution to show that B is 50%+ likely, not that A is unlikely.
Perhaps it's easiest to explain with an example. Let's say the defence argues for A, and prosecution argues for B. The prosecution shows that the probability of A being true is 1%. The judge can not take that as a B having a probability of 99%, since it may be that C is true.
Thus the judge requires prosecution to show that B is 50%+ likely, not that A is unlikely.
Does that make more sense?