A more thorough explanation:

The rule against pyramiding inferences is a legal principle that prohibits making multiple inferences based on a single piece of evidence. This means that a conclusion cannot be drawn from a chain of assumptions that build on each other.

For example, if a witness testifies that they saw a person running away from a crime scene, it would be a violation of the rule against pyramiding inferences to assume that the person was guilty of the crime simply because they were running. This is because there could be many reasons why someone might be running, and it would be unfair to draw a conclusion based on a single observation.

Another example would be if a police officer found a bag of drugs in a car and assumed that the driver was a drug dealer, simply because they were in possession of drugs. This would be a violation of the rule against pyramiding inferences because there could be many reasons why someone might have drugs in their possession, and it would be unfair to assume that they were a drug dealer based on a single piece of evidence.

The rule against pyramiding inferences is important because it helps to ensure that legal decisions are based on solid evidence and logical reasoning, rather than on assumptions and speculation.