I’m a lawyer.
When someone is asked a material question (not necessarily having been sworn) and an average or normal person under the circumstances would reply—or deny—but the person says nothing, that silence could be introduced as a “tacit admission”.
***That sounds a bit... quizzical. Is that a rule of evidence? I’m hoping you can provide some sort of legal code or somethingorother to help us along with this so that I can feel more confident using that argument moving forward.
Do a search on Admission by silnce and you’ll find a lot of reading on it.
here’s one such thing:
Admission by silence
By John N. Doggett
WorldNetDaily.com
Lawyers are amazed that Bill Clinton has not denied the accuracy of Monica Lewinsky’s testimony about their relationship. “Admission by Silence” is one of the most devastating rules of evidence. The idea is simple, clear and powerful. When someone accuses you of doing something bad or illegal in a legal proceeding, you must deny it or your failure to do so will be construed as an admission to the truth of the allegations.
-snip-
Btw, by contrast, i believe the rule of interpretation is different in the UK.