Quote Originally Posted by sharpe1027 View Post
I think I am not explaining myself properly. Why does it matter that the evidence is indirect, so long as it is sufficient?
Indirect, or circumstantial evidence never completes the circle that a crime was committed and you know who did it.

At best, it gives you a probability. In some cases, say a murder or robbery, you have physical evidence, method and a time frame for the crime. Process of elimination with indirect or circumstantial evidence can get you close to certain. Maybe enough to overcome reasonable doubt.

In this case, the complete lack of direct evidence of tampering, including what should have been regarded as less than compelling physical evidence of the balls in use, is being used in connection with direct evidence of opportunity (guy in room with balls) and possibly incriminating conduct (destroy cell phone) to imagine a crime that there is LITTLE TO NO evidence has occurred.

So it SEEMS like Brady is guilty of something. But no one can say with any sense of certainty what he did, or knew about.