Many people believe that circumstantional evidence doesn't carry the same weight as physical evidence. I've heard lawyers and prosecturos on some of the talking head shows say that a majority of convictions are based on circumstational evidence. I've also heard of the term "CSI Syndrome" where people who watch too many episodes of the show believe that there has to be a smokiing gun with bullet to match, or a bloody knife with the perps bloody fingerprints on it, or a hammer with the victim's blood and hair and the perp's fingerprints on it. Certainly after reading several crime books written by Ann Rule, it's pretty obvious that circumstational evidence carries a lot of weight. In at least one of the cases she's written about, no body was every found, but the circumstantial evidence was so powerful that there was a conviction.
I heard that report also.
The fact is circumstantial evidence is more compelling than direct evidence.
An accuseds finger print at the scene isn't necessarily proof of having commited the crime. There could be lots of logical reasons for a finger print somewhere. Same thing applies with other direct evidence. It is when circumstantial evidence is so compelling that those direct evidence things then come into play.
I like you think people are watching to many CSI programs.