Is absence of evidence.... evidence of innocence

[Angelo222]

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

     in your dreams...any lawyer reading this must be pissing themself laughing.

A failure to prove guilt can never imply innocence.  That is how our justice system works. 

[Mr Gray]

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

Being not guilty has a lot to do with innocence
It doesn't prove innocence but it is evidence of innocence

[Mr Gray]

    in your dreams...any lawyer reading this must be pissing themself laughing.

A failure to prove guilt can never imply innocence.  That is how our justice system works.

If there is no evidence against someone that would imply innocence
But not prove it

[Angelo222]

If there is no evidence against someone that would imply innocence
But not prove it

For the second time, British courts are concerned with GUILT and not innocence. A court has to establish guilt, it is unconcerned with innocence.  A not guilty verdict simply means that insufficient evidence has been adduced under the law to find them guilty.

Anyone seeking compensation has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that they are in fact innocent of the crime for which they were originally tried. That is a much more difficult task.

[stephen25000]

Perhaps an expert in the field of Law could clarify the position.

[Mr Gray]

For the second time, British courts are concerned with GUILT and not innocence. A court has to establish guilt, there are unconcerned with innocence.  A not guilty verdict simply means that insufficient evidence has been adduced under the law to find them guilty.

Anyone seeking compensation has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that they are in fact innocent of the crime for which they were originally tried.

I've posted that fact many times
It doesn't affect the statement that absence of evidence is evidence of innocence

[Angelo222]

A person isn't innocent just because a jury fails to find them guilty.  Its called common sense!!

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps an expert in the field of Law could clarify the position.

You constantly post that absence of evidence of an abductor more than suggests there wasn't one

[Angelo222]

I've posted that fact many times
It doesn't affect the statement that absence of evidence is evidence of innocence

An absence of evidence can come about for many reasons thus why it cannot ever be 'evidence of innocence'.

[Mr Gray]

A person isn't innocent just because a jury fails to find them guilty.  Its called common sense!!

A not guilty verdict would suggest innocence but of course not prove it

[Angelo222]

You constantly post that absence of evidence of an abductor more than suggests there wasn't one

He is right of course, nothing to do with innocence.

[Mr Gray]

An absence of evidence can come about for many reasons thus why it cannot ever be 'evidence of innocence'.

You are confusing evidence and proof
Just because there is evidence of a person's innocence does not mean they are innocent

[Angelo222]

A not guilty verdict would suggest innocence but of course not prove it

It is suggestive of many things but not evidence.

Reasons why a jury fail to convict.

1. It has been nobbled.
2. Lack of credible evidence.
3. Dislike of prosecution arguments.
4. Alibi.
5. Evidence of innocence.
6. Want to get home.

[Mr Gray]

It is suggestive of many things but not evidence.

It is evidence
Anything that supports an argument is evidence

[Angelo222]

It is evidence
Anything that supports an argument is evidence

A verdict isn't an argument, it is a decision.  By extension the Portuguese Supreme Court ruled that the McCanns had not produced evidence of innocence.  Does that mean they are guilty or to use your words, suggestive of guilt?