That someone evaded having evidence be brought against them does not qualify as evidence having been brought against them.

Sure, but by the same token you can't claim the lack of a guilty conviction is evidence he's innocent, when he will not stand trial.

Never did. But my point is that evidence of innocence should only be necessary as a counter to evidence of guilt, and if there is no evidence of guilt, one should be considered innocent, at least legaly, even without evidence of innocence. That's the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."