Playing the Devil's Advocate card (for once), I assume a judge doesn't need 100% proof that he said "pleb" to be able to declare that that is indeed what was said? I've never quite understood how anyone can be found guilty when it comes down to one person's word against another. Surely such cases will always be inconclusive. Is a judge duty bound to come up with a verdict one way or the other in cases such as this or could he have delivered an inconclusive verdict if he'd wanted to?