Wow. I'd ask for a refund because your schooling sucks. It only took me 2 minutes to look it up on the web.
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak
("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case)
. Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false.
Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime.
Now after doing a bit of reading on circumstantial evidence (I can post more links and cases) I have come to the conclusion that you are full of crap. I seriously doubt that you work or were ever schooled in law. Cheers.