You and I are probably looking at the existance of the combined total of physical evidence and saying "I cannot come up with a reasonable explanation that is innocent". We end up deciding between what I call the "Big Bad Wolf" vs "Goldilocks" to explain the sum total of the evidence.
Those who disagree with us will take you to task for each and every single item of evidence and individually find a contrary explanation for each piece.
That is why the rope analogy and the guy cheating at 21 examples done by Dusek were important. In his game of 21, the card player won every hand and the chances of him doing that without cheating is nill. But taken one hand at a time its possible that each he could win each individual hand. But common sense tells you that you have to be cheating if you win dozens of hands.