Argument from Silence with Silence means consent

Where does consent come into this? The fallacy doesn't say anything about consent, you can't consent to a question (unless it is specifically framed as a request for consent), and consent is not the same thing as confirmation.

I will not remain silent!

I want to say "thank you" to everyone for their comments regarding my question.

As Messiah cultists will opine, "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence," nor anything but just what it is. I'd argue this is less of a fallacy, and more of an imagined basis for assumption and confirmation bias. Remember that a fallacy implies a failure to assert that your position or argument is sound. Paranoia is the lack of sound judgement.

Remember that a fallacy implies a failure to assert that your position or argument is sound.

I never heard of that definition (or implication). Since informal arguments or positions cannot be sound, then this implication cannot apply to informal fallacies, including the argument from silence. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you wrote.

For the most part when you attempt to make an argument from disconnected lines of evidence then even if you're right for an unrelated reason, what you said does not support your claim and is fallacious. Sure, informally a story might be convincing but if you cannot connect the dots then it's a fallacy even if you're ultimately right about the overall point.

Silence to a question may help suggest guilt but it could also mean a lot of other unrelated things, is all I'm saying.

If the thing in question would necessarily leave evidence then it's fair to conclude that a lack of evidence confirms the absence of something.

E.g. If I were to claim that mount Vesuvius erupted last night, and there is a complete lack of evidence, we would not be left shrugging our shoulders and saying that we just don't know if it really happened. 

Sure, as are all similar Bayesian approaches to evidence for claims but most such claims, especially on theological figures and events that have long since passed, aren't as clear cut nor necessary.

Nice straw man example though.. just not at all pertinent to the topic at hand. It'd be more like dismissing the claim that Vesuvius erupted because you'd expect to find lava, not realizing that not all eruptions include obvious lava flows.

You obviously don't understand what a straw man is. My response wasn't to a specific, it was that "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" doesn't apply in all cases. It doesn't, I gave an example where it doesn't. 

Also I don't know what exactly is "more like" dismissing a claim that Vesuvius erupted because of a lack of something specific; I was quite clear in saying a complete lack of evidence.