Obviousy the limited intellect of the audience meant the judge had to revert to metaphors to articulate his views. Much like Jebus using parables to get the message across to the simple folk.
I got the feeling the weight of judgement was predicated on a transference of a personal interest. Much of the decision seemed to me, to be one of gutfeel and subjective probabilities rather than balanced objectivity, but the law is allowed to be a bludgeon when it wants to be.
