59. The fair-minded and informed observer would therefore take into consideration all of the circumstances as they are now known to him. These include:i. the emphatic and categorical denial of one party, (the PM), to the alleged email exchange as set out above. ii. the less categorical but no less emphatic denial by the other party, (the CJ), to the alleged exchange. iii. the fact that no copy of the alleged WhatsApp message from the CJ to the PM has been produced, though allegedly seen (and reported upon). iv. the fact that alleged WhatsApp messages, (though it is alleged on behalf of the CJ that they were doctored), were produced by the same reporter but not this critical one. v. the inherent implausibility of a Chief Justice seeking to facilitate provision of housing by communicating privately with a PM in respect of Dylan Huggins and Carol Huggins, persons known to be victims of Romero, a self-confessed fraudster. Such observer would not forget that Romero had been reported to the police by that same CJ. Such an observer would recall that Romero had pleaded guilty to fraud committed by pretending to be able to obtain such housing for persons, including those very victims, in exchange for fees of TT$4500 and TT$4000. Such an informed observer, knowing that a fraud had been perpetrated on the persons alleged to be the subject of the purported WhatsApp messages, would hardly remain of the view that two of the highest office holders in the country were yet communicating via WhatsApp to facilitate provision of HDC housing for those persons, far less doing so shortly after the election. 60. He/she, would not necessarily unthinkingly accept denials, no matter how emphatic, solely because they emanate from holders of high office. 34