McCanns seek to have Supreme Court judgement annulled in libel damages case.

[faithlilly]

an absence of evidence is evidence of innocence I would say.   For example, there was an absence of evidence that Murat abducted Madeleine, therefore I would say this was evidence that he was innocent.  Agree or disagree?

Not in double jeopardy cases.

[Alfie]

Not in double jeopardy cases.

You didn't answer my question. 

BTW - in cases of double jeopardy there has to have been an initial charge and trial, which assumes there must be some evidence presented in court in the first place.  Trials rarely take place on the basis of an absence of evidence (not in civilized countries anyway).

[Mr Gray]

Do you see no difference between 'lack of evidence' and 'evidence proving innocence'? I do.

The SC judges said;

Page 70
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

The lack of evidence is evidence of innocence.. by definition
Not proof but certainly evidence

[faithlilly]

You didn't answer my question. 

BTW - in cases of double jeopardy there has to have been an initial charge and trial, which assumes there must be some evidence presented in court in the first place.  Trials rarely take place on the basis of an absence of evidence (not in civilized countries anyway).

Do you consider circumstantial evidence evidence ( let's take the ' I won't answer your question if you don't answer mine' as read shall we ! )

[G-Unit]

an absence of evidence is evidence of innocence I would say.   For example, there was an absence of evidence that Murat abducted Madeleine, therefore I would say this was evidence that he was innocent.  Agree or disagree?

Afraid not. An 'argument from ignorance' is a logical fallacy, as I have pointed out before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Alfie]

Afraid not. An 'argument from ignorance' is a logical fallacy, as I have pointed out before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

So, there is no evidence that Murat is innocent, nor that he has he been cleared.  Fair enough.

[Mr Gray]

Afraid not. An 'argument from ignorance' is a logical fallacy, as I have pointed out before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

you need to read it again and you will see you are wrong in this instance...

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four



If I was to say that the lack of evidence PROVES the mccanns ARE innocent then that would be an argument from ignorance...

but that is not what is being said.......what is being said is that the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...then that is perfectly correct.....you need to think about it

[Robittybob1]

That is wrong on many levels, not confirming something does not make it invalid.

It was invalid that they remain arguidos though.  That bit is confirmed as above.

[Robittybob1]

So who was it who/whom  pointed to Murat in the first place  ?

Was it Silvia Batista?  Whoever wrote the anonymous letter has something to answer for.

[Robittybob1]

Do you see no difference between 'lack of evidence' and 'evidence proving innocence'? I do.

The SC judges said;

Page 70
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

Can you list the type of evidence that would be 'evidence proving innocence'?
As an arguido you don't have to answer questions, but every question unanswered  is further lack evidence proving innocence, yet it doesn't imply guilt either. It is a weird situation to be in where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, not because you are guilty but don't want to make a mistake and self incriminate.

[Mr Gray]

Can you list the type of evidence that would be 'evidence proving innocence'?

gunits is a little confused....she is talking about proof of innocence wheras the quote from the SC talks of evidence of innocence.....there certainly is evidence of innocence......

[Mr Gray]

sceptics say that there could not have been an abductor because no forensic evidence has been found. they are using absence of evidence as proof that there was no abductor....that is an argument from ignorance.....there cant have been an abduction because there is no evidence....another argument from ignorance

[Robittybob1]

gunits is a little confused....she is talking about proof of innocence wheras the quote from the SC talks of evidence of innocence.....there certainly is evidence of innocence......

What was it then, can you list it?

[Mr Gray]

What was it then, can you list it?

absence of evidence is evidence of innocence....tehn we have the list from the archiving report

[John]

sceptics say that there could not have been an abductor because no forensic evidence has been found. they are using absence of evidence as proof that there was no abductor....that is an argument from ignorance.....there cant have been an abduction because there is no evidence....another argument from ignorance

Clearly, the absence of any evidence of an intruder has no significance for you?