On the Difference Between Affirming and Denying Something

I don't yet think some Christians understand the difference between affirming a claim and denying one, especially extraordinary ones. Let me take the example of who killed Jon Bene Ramsay, that decade or two long ago tragic murder. There are several scenarios and suspects. But to act with certainty that you know who did it is different, much different, than someone who says I just don't know, or someone who denies your claim. Either position seems much more defensible than to know with certainty who did it. Let's say that there are five suspects (I don't know if there are). If I deny that one of them is the killer then I may have an 80% chance of being right in my denial, you see. I say "may" because it depends on the evidence. But when we talk about an extraordinary claim coming from an ancient set of documents this problem is magnified a hundred fold, for there is no evidence of such things as a talking serpent, an axe head that floated, or a talking ass. The probability that these things did not happen is on my side.