[Devil_Anse]

I realize that the public is dazzled by forensic evidence, especially given the fairly recent developments with DNA, and many other wonders, such as insect life cycles. But it's STILL not direct evidence! It is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

We could find Scott's blood mixed with Laci's in that kitchen. That would still not be direct evidence of a bloody battle! It would be circumstantial evidence that Scott and Laci both shed blood in the kitchen, and from that we COULD infer that they had a bloody fight in the kitchen.

Direct evidence is, essentially, eyewitness testimony. There will always be exceptions, so I will not say that direct evidence is ALWAYS eyewitness testimony. But it is an "I was there" sort of thing.

Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence. It can tell us a lot about the person or thing which left it. However, that information will not point to the solution without the necessary links of inferences.

[oceanperch]

Thus, OJ walks.

I watched the trial and I never actually heard any evidence that he was seen at the crime.

I thought it all, in the OJ case, was as you explained circumstantial evidence.