I don't see why a judge should have egg on his face. Surely he can only go by evidence presented at the trial?

I find it impossible to imagine that his lying about his past insurance history is a fabrication of the insurance companies but I would be interested to know how he can get a fair trial. Just about everyone knows of the "Millionaire" fraud and I suspect that would be enough to influence juries even if false charges were brought against him.

As for Ingram himself, I wonder what else will come to light...