"What is often left unaddressed is the difference between drawing inferences from the evidence (which is permitted) and speculating based on the facts (which is not permitted)."
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/72055
"An inference is a logical deduction of fact. It is quite different from speculation, which lacks a logical foundation, and is no more than guesswork."
https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au
"There is a legal distinction between speculation and drawing inferences from the circumstantial and direct evidence on the record. The trier of fact is permitted to do the latter, but not the former."
https://www.alexi.com/matters/issues/the-law-of-speculation-and-drawing-inferences-from-the-circumstantial-evidence
JohnM
"What is often left unaddressed is the difference between drawing inferences from the evidence (which is permitted) and speculating based on the facts (which is not permitted)."
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/72055
Actual quote:
"
In a number of recent cases the courts have said that regulators should base their conclusions on evidence rather than speculation. What is often left unaddressed is the difference between drawing inferences from the evidence (which is permitted) and speculating based on the facts (which is not permitted). "
Quoting the opinion of Australian solicitors Erica Richler and Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, who disagree with the court's opinion doesn't support your claim.
Once again you misrepresented the nature of the article.
I see you've added more links. I'm not going to go through them all, but this one I won't let pass by;
"The main difference between assumption and inference is that we make assumptions without any evidence or facts, while we make inference based on facts and evidence."
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-assumption-and-inference/
The website actually says;
"In logical reasoning, an assumption is an unstated link in the chain of evidence and conclusion. To find the assumption, you have to find the gap in an argument and filling it."
and
"An inference is a conclusion you draw depending on your observations. Making an inference means arriving at a conclusion after logically analyzing the available evidence and facts. "
So, now let's test this theory by applying it to a real case;
Oswald is seen carrying a large packet to work on Friday morning. Two witnesses see him carry that package. On of those says that he carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit, making the package too small to conceal a broken down rifle. When that same witness was shown a paper bag found at the TSBD he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. There is no evidence that Oswald made the bag found at the TSBD or that he took it with him to Irving on Thursday evening. There is also no conclusive evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was ever in Ruth Paine's garage.
Those are the facts, yet LNs, without a shred of evidence and with a total lack of facst, nevertheless claim Oswald carried the TSBD rifle in the bag and call it a "logical inference" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bottom line: one man's "logical inference" is another man's "assumption"
