In the absence of evidence for their innocence, to say that the absence of evidence for their guilt is evidence of their innocence may not be applied. If you do not have evidence for their innocence, then you DO have evidence of their guilt (by virtue of the absence of evidence being evidence of absence) and therefore you do not have the required absence of evidence for their guilt that was used to draw the initial conclusion regarding innocence.
The converse is also true.
In the absence of evidence for their guilt, to say that the absence of evidence for their innocence is evidence of their guilt may not be applied. If you... (read more)
In the absence of evidence for their innocence, to say that the absence of evidence for their guilt is evidence of their innocence may not be applied. If you do not have evidence for their innocence, then you DO have evidence of their guilt (by virtue of the absence of evidence being evidence of absence) and therefore you do not have the required absence of evidence for their guilt that was used to draw the initial conclusion regarding innocence.
The converse is also true.
In the absence of evidence for their guilt, to say that the absence of evidence for their innocence is evidence of their guilt may not be applied. If you... (read more)