Is absence of evidence.... evidence of innocence

[jassi]

So you accept that SY review​ed the evidence against the mccanns

They said they did. Only they know what that actually entailed.

[Mr Gray]

Cite  when they were interviewed then.

you stated yesterday that they had not been interviewed and provided no cite

[stephen25000]

you stated yesterday that they had not been interviewed and provided no cite

There is no one to say they have, and they haven't investigated the parents.

[Mr Gray]

There is no one to say they have, and they haven't investigated the parents.

I would say they have investihated the parents as they have stated they ahve looked at the evidence....that is investigating

[G-Unit]

No your understanding of logic is faulty
The fact that no black swans had been seen was evidence that all swans were white
But not proof
Your problem is you confuse evidence and proof
The fact that there is evidence all swans are white is not proof all swans are white
Think about it

Were we discussing proof? Legally cases are 'proved' on the balance of probability. If investigators gather enough evidence to convince juries/judges that someone is guilty the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt or on the preponderance of the evidence.

If insufficient or inadequate evidence is presented the person will be judged to be not guilty.

They then continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence they are entitled to by law.

The lack of evidence to convict or the acquittal of the accused isn't evidence of innocence, however. If it was, Barry George would have been compensated for wrongful imprisonment.

[Mr Gray]

Were we discussing proof? Legally cases are 'proved' on the balance of probability. If investigators gather enough evidence to convince juries/judges that someone is guilty the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt or on the preponderance of the evidence.

If insufficient or inadequate evidence is presented the person will be judged to be not guilty.

They then continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence they are entitled to by law.

The lack of evidence to convict or the acquittal of the accused isn't evidence of innocence, however. If it was, Barry George would have been compensated for wrongful imprisonment.

You are showing your poor understanding of logic now
The acquittal of Barry George is evidence big his innocence
He has not been compensated because it is insufficient evidence
To be compensated he requires a level of proof of innocence

[Mr Gray]

A conviction is evidence but not proof of guilt
An acquittal is evidence but not proof of innocence
That has to be true

If it isn't what value does a conviction or acquittal have

[G-Unit]

A conviction is evidence but not proof of guilt
An acquittal is evidence but not proof of innocence
That has to be true

If it isn't what value does a conviction or acquittal have

Legally speaking a conviction means that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the defendant. An acquittal means they failed. The acquitted person can claim the acquittal is evidence that they are innocent, but legally that means nothing. New evidence can lead to a retrial and a guilty verdict.

[jassi]

Legally speaking a conviction means that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the defendant. An acquittal means they failed. The acquitted person can claim the acquittal is evidence that they are innocent, but legally that means nothing. New evidence can lead to a retrial and a guilty verdict.

The police can also say that they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the crime - which can be a pretty damning statement.

[Robittybob1]

Legally speaking a conviction means that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the defendant. An acquittal means they failed. The acquitted person can claim the acquittal is evidence that they are innocent, but legally that means nothing. New evidence can lead to a retrial and a guilty verdict.

even a conviction can be appealed.

[Mr Gray]

Legally speaking a conviction means that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the defendant. An acquittal means they failed. The acquitted person can claim the acquittal is evidence that they are innocent, but legally that means nothing. New evidence can lead to a retrial and a guilty verdict.

So an acquittal means nothing as regards evidence of innocence
Could you therefore explain how the McCann's would have been able to prove their innocence to the satisfaction of the archiving process and the supreme court

[Mr Gray]

even a conviction can be appealed.

You should have said proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt
A guilty verdict is not absolute proof of guilt
It is obviously evidence of guilt

[Mr Gray]

Legally speaking a conviction means that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the defendant. An acquittal means they failed. The acquitted person can claim the acquittal is evidence that they are innocent, but legally that means nothing. New evidence can lead to a retrial and a guilty verdict.

An acquittal is evidence of innocence but not proof

[John]

Some interesting views but can we please restrict them to the topic under discussion.

Someone asked earlier how an innocent person can be convicted of a crime.  Actually it is quite easy given certain circumstances. In my own case the facts were manipulated and twisted by a rogue prosecutor.  Allegations were invented in order to support an otherwise weak case. Weak and incompetent defence lawyers failed to bring key witnesses to court despite them being notified. Add to this a system which allows simple majority verdicts and you have the pitiful consequence that eight people can convict even though seven voted not guilty. This is what passes for justice in Scotland my friends!

[Eleanor]

Some interesting views but can we please restrict them to the topic under discussion.

Someone asked earlier how an innocent person can be convicted of a crime.  Actually it is quite easy given certain circumstances. In my own case the facts were manipulated and twisted by a rogue prosecutor.  Allegations were invented in order to support an otherwise weak case. Weak and incompetent defence lawyers failed to bring key witnesses to court despite them being notified. Add to this a system which allows simple majority verdicts and you have the pitiful consequence that eight people can convict even though seven voted not guilty. This is what passes for justice in Scotland my friends!

Scotland sounds worryingly like Portugal.