Is absence of evidence.... evidence of innocence

[Mr Gray]

surely lack of evidence is evidence of innocence

123

[Alice Purjorick]

surely lack of evidence is evidence of innocence

I would imagine that erelong an itinerant will pass by muttering " 'tis but a false dichotomy" or words to that effect.

[John]

surely lack of evidence is evidence of innocence

Absolutely not, lack of evidence is neutral under the Law.  In the same way that a refusal by a suspect to cooperate with investigators is often wrongly perceived as guilt but cannot be viewed as evidence of guilt.

[Mr Gray]

Absolutely not, lack of evidence is neutral under the Law.  In the same way that a refusal by a suspect to cooperate with investigators is often wrongly perceived as guilt but cannot be viewed as evidence of guilt.

Lack of evidence is not neutral John
Suspect s at trial are acquitted due to lack of evidence
That is certainly not neutral

[G-Unit]

Lack of evidence is not neutral John
Suspect s at trial are acquitted due to lack of evidence
That is certainly not neutral

Being acquitted isn't being declared innocent.

[Mr Gray]

Being acquitted isn't being declared innocent.

Neither is being found not guilty
But both acquittal and not guilty verdicts are evidence of innocence

[Eleanor]

Oh for God's sake.  Is anyone ever innocent?

[Eleanor]

Everybody is innocent until proven guilty, which ain't going to happen in the absence of evidence, or even insufficient evidence.

To suggest otherwise is Libellous.

[Mr Gray]

Absence of evidence results in a verdict of not guilty
That is evidence of innocence

[G-Unit]

Neither is being found not guilty
But both acquittal and not guilty verdicts are evidence of innocence

Barry George was acquitted of the murder of Jill Dando at his second trial. He was denied compensation for wrongful incarceration, however. The High Court judges didn't see the acquittal as evidence of innocence;

 "There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of murder"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_George#Life_after_Dando_acquittal

[Angelo222]

Just calling something rubbish doesn't make it rubbish
You need to present a logical argument as I have done

I have yet to see you provide any argument of substance.  Acquittal does not prove innocence, just ask Sion Jenkins or Barry George.

[Mr Gray]

Barry George was acquitted of the murder of Jill Dando at his second trial. He was denied compensation for wrongful incarceration, however. The High Court judges didn't see the acquittal as evidence of innocence;

 "There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of murder"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_George#Life_after_Dando_acquittal

Wrong wrong wrong
The acquittal is evidence of innocence but not proof

[Mr Gray]

I have yet to see you provide any argument of substance.  Acquittal does not prove innocence, just ask Soon Jenkins or Barry George.

I have provided an argument of substance it's just that you have misunderstood it as this post proves
Absence of evidence is evidence of innocence but not proof
As I have already posted
You are confusing evidence and proof

[Angelo222]

Absence of evidence results in a verdict of not guilty
That is evidence of innocence

The law school of hard knocks doesn't count.  Being found not guilty has nothing to do with innocence.

[Mr Gray]

I would imagine that erelong an itinerant will pass by muttering " 'tis but a false dichotomy" or words to that effect.

No because I have not used the word proof