Are you saying that 50% of the time circumstantial evidence isn't circumstantial evidence? Are you saying that 50% of the time circumstantial evidence is actually direct evidence? Are you saying that 50% of the time circumstantial evidence is actually no evidence at all? Is it possible that circumstantial evidence can be so overwhelming, as to overcome substantial and convincing doubt as to guilt?

All of those possibilities are worth thinking, about, John - all worth thinking about. Let us know if you come to any conclusions.