Is absence of evidence.... evidence of innocence

[Alice Purjorick]

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

In absolute terms they can be.
Courts deal only in "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

[Angelo222]

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

That's just it Eleanor, we are all guilty of something.

[Mr Gray]

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?

I wasn't referring to and didn't mention a verdict
Both you and Stephen regularly claim that the absence of evidence of an abduction means it didn't happen
You are using absence of evidence as evidence of absence

[Alice Purjorick]

No because I have not used the word proof

That is irrelevant.

[Mr Gray]

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?

What evidence could they possibly produce

[Angelo222]

What evidence could they possibly produce

Maybe answering a few simple questions and encouraging their pals to take part in a reconstruction would have been a good start.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe answering a few simple questions and encouraging their pals to take part in a reconstruction would have been a good start.

As John has pointed out not answering questions is not evidence of guilt

[Eleanor]

That's just it Eleanor, we are all guilty of something.

You might be, but I'm not.

[Angelo222]

As John has pointed out not answering questions is not evidence of guilt

It can be suggestive of guilt and when taken with other evidence could very well point to guilt.

[Angelo222]

You might be, but I'm not.

Well for one thing you are guilty of being rude to members when the mood takes you.  *&*%£

[Robittybob1]

And is evidence of innocence

Madeleine is missing, we presume as a result of a criminal act.  Who ever committed that presumed act is not innocent, but there is no proof as to who that is.  So there cannot be proof of innocence until some one else has been proven guilty IMO.

[Angelo222]

And is evidence of innocence

A decision by a jury cannot be considered evidence.   

[Benice]

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.

'Insufficient evidence' should not be interpreted as meaning that evidence exists, but it just hasn't been found yet.     A valid reason why  'insufficient evidence' is found  can simply be that no evidence exists and never did exist to be found in the first place.
AIMHO

[Eleanor]

Well for one thing you are guilty of being rude to members when the mood takes you.  *&*%£

You and me both, our kid.  But you are fractionally better at it than I am.

[Angelo222]

Madeleine is missing, we presume as a result of a criminal act.  Who ever committed that presumed act is not innocent, but there is no proof as to who that is.  So there cannot be proof of innocence until some one else has been proven guilty IMO.

I don't presume a criminal act Rob.  I presume an act of neglect followed by an accident followed by an act of desperation.