113 video recording in the presence of the police and that the ballots discovered were not the ‘know Your Candidate’ ballots papers. Further, we do not believe that witness Leighe was best suited to rebut the testimony of B. Saye Bliton; why didn’t the appellee bring the police officer whose report witness Leigh relied on to indicate that the ballots found were know your candidate ballots or why didn’t they bring another eye witness to refute the allegation that the ballots were not the original. This query by the Court did not however relieve the appellants or meeting their burden of proof similarly by the production of persons who had firsthand knowledge of incidents complained of such that those who testified, as for example, the Chief Executive of the Campaign of the Liberty Party, could have their testimonies buttressed substantially by those firsthand eye witnesses. The response of Witness Lieghe, while inadequate to address the claim of the appellants, was yet limited to only a specific claim which we have said from the evidence, did not go to showing that the proof shown by the appellants was overwhelming. On the allegation that the flash drives given the political parties had 79 more polling stations with ten (10) precincts missing amounting to some 35,750 votes; that in 75 precincts at least one polling place is missing; that several voters existed on the FRR multiple times and that the same voter ID was assigned to more than one person, the appellee’s witness stated that the FRR referenced or relied on by the appellants was manipulated by the transfer of data; that the FRR had not changed. In the face of such a defense, one would have thought that the appellee would have produced one of the original flash drives given another political party to contradict what was produced by the 2nd appellants and validate this defense. The law is “the best evidence which the case admits of must always be produced and no evidence is sufficient which presuppose the existence of better evidence. In Re: Massaquoi et al v. Denis, 40 LLR 704 (2001); The Management of City Builders v. The Purported City Builders, Supreme Court Opinion March Term A. D. 2013.” On the allegation of CDC receiving 1000 more votes that the actual threshold of votes at the polling place, the appellee’s witness stated that that was an error made by the presiding officer, but that the error was subsequently corrected by the presiding officer. We see from the records that the tally sheet from the polling place