Well because it's obvious and I figured that you're smart enough to see that.
To spell it out for you: the set of evidence that is admissible in court is a tiny fraction of the set of all evidence that exists. Furthermore, the set of evidence that is not only admissible in court, but is actually presented to a court is an even yet tinier proper subset of the admissible evidence.
When you exclude the vast majority of evidence that a thing may be happening, you don't actually have grounds to say that the thing isn't happening.
And you still avoid my question: WHY. Why didn't those litigants even try to proffer evidence? Why does it just so happen that the only evidence available to support these claims is so weak that it's not even worth trying?
I think the reason you keep avoiding my question is that you don't have an answer for it. All I see are repeated trips around a loop of self-reinforcing beliefs that are rooted in nothing. (Or do you even believe this stuff? Here I am trying to understand what's going on in your head, and perhaps you're just going through the motions...)
Anyway, you're wrong about evidence. Most evidence is admissible, especially if it's going before a bench. What the legal process doesn't allow is "evidence" lacking any indicia of trustworthiness. And as to your claim that the evidence "actually presented to a court is an even yet tinier proper subset of the admissible evidence", well, uh, that's entirely up to the litigants themselves. As I've said, if you won't even bother trying to put up your evidence, one has to wonder why.
