My fence posts and panels removed.

DanDare999

Bendy_House said:

You do NOT need 'hard' evidence in a civil case. You need a balance of probability.

And evidence achieves that balance. 

BikingBud

In respect to the OP could you continue this in a separate room?

DanDare999

Bendy_House said:

It doesn't need to be 'hard' - conclusive, caught-in-the-act - that's my point.

LP only take on cases they are pretty confident of winning. Mine was.

This might help you with with circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence differs from direct evidence in that it is evidence which is not drawn from direct observation of a fact or event. Instead, it is evidence which is inferred from a set of circumstances that relate to the event. In criminal law, circumstantial evidence allows a conclusion to be drawn from a set of circumstances. For example, if a defendant were charged with stealing items from a shop, their guilt could be proven if a witness had direct evidence, obtained through their senses, that the defendant stole the items in question. In other words, if the defendant saw the crime take place, their evidence could be used to prove the defendant's guilt. In the absence of such direct evidence, however, circumstantial evidence can be used to determine a conclusion. In such an event, evidence such as the fact that the defendant was seen running from the shop around the time of the alleged theft could be interpreted by the jury as potential proof of the individual's guilt. If more circumstantial evidence then came to light, such as, perhaps, a sighting of the individual with the alleged stolen items, the evidence could be used to prove the defendant's guilt. In this way, circumstantial evidence, although not direct, is not necessarily weaker than direct evidence, providing that there is enough of it to lead a jury to make a reasonable verdict that is within the realms of reasonable doubt.

So maybe if someone saw your neighbour walking away with keel killer and weed killer killed your tree then that may do it. As it stands the OP doesn't have this. 


But then what do I know, I'll leave you to advise the OP as you won in court without any real evidence. 

Bendy_House

BikingBud said:

In respect to the OP could you continue this in a separate room?

In our defence, we were trying to discuss the situation as it could relate to Janbero, but - yes - it became a distraction, and I've deleted my posts.

We both do hope for the same outcome for the OP.