“It is the nature of circumstantial evidence that no single fact is persuasive by itself, but the totality of the facts will compel a reasonable person to reach a given conclusion.”
We aren’t talking about circumstantial evidence. We’re not even talking about evidence. The issue is a lack of evidence. Which can, of course, can be used for surmise, but is not, and never will be, itself evidence.
I mean no disrespect, but you don’t sound like you’ve much experience inside a courtroom. There is such a thing as negative evidence, and while arguing from silence may be a second-rate way to prove a point from the perspective of a purist logician, it works quite well in a court of law:
“Often, counsel must prove that a given event did not occur or that a particular sound was not made or heard. Where the attending circumstances show that it has probative force that it is relevant and material evidence proving that an event did not occur is admissible and may often have a devastating effect on the case. This is ‘negative evidence.’”
See http://www.tlrcblog.com/2006/10/articles/questioning/using-negative-evidence-as-a-positive-approach/
Therefore, as the lack of evidence for a claimed event may work as affirmative evidence that said event did not occur, the problem still falls under the rubric of circumstantial evidence and any reasonable juror is entitled to draw all reasonable inferences from the totality of the facts, whether those facts are positive or negative. Sorry.