Reply #63: But that point isn't accurate

[sangh0]

Circumstantial evidence IS sufficient to convict, and should be.

Imagine that I go into a room, and see a valuable object in the room, and then leave the room, with no one in it, and shut the only door to the room. Then you come along, open the door, go into the room, and shut the door behind you. After a minute or two, the door opens, you emerge from the room and shut the door behind you, and then leave the area. I go back into the room, and I see that the valuable object is no longer in the room. No one else was in the room during this time.

There's no physical evidence, but there's enough circumstantial evidence to possibly convict you.