This is truly idiotic. Are you telling me that you could only vote to convict someone of a crime if there was an eyewitness? Circumstantial evidence requires some level of assumption (or, more precisely, deduction). If you found drugs in your daughter's room and she told you she knew nothing about them, would you believe her since you probably couldn't PROVE her wrong? I can go on and on.
Rome has never been to College Station. I've backed up my statement. If you think that statement is wrong, you need to back your's up. Saying that I can't say for sure is wrong, since I have said for sure.