Quote (Cascadian @ Oct 14 2022 05:48pm)
You've used the same "evidence" (I think you mean observation) though. At least your inconsistency is consistent.
Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact or set of facts from which one could infer the fact in question. For example, that a suspect is seen running away from a murder scene with a weapon in hand is circumstantial evidence he committed the murder. This contrasts with direct evidence, which directly proves the fact in question. An eyewitness who testifies to seeing the suspect shoot the victim is direct evidence.
Both direct and circumstantial evidence are considered legitimate forms of proof in federal and state courts. A person may be convicted of a crime based on circumstantial proof alone.
Stay your lane...