Which category of evidence is best defined as 'circumstantial'?

Circumstantial evidence is best defined as evidence that implies a conclusion indirectly, rather than providing direct proof of a fact. This type of evidence does not directly establish that something occurred but instead requires inference to connect the evidence to a conclusion. For instance, if someone is seen running from the scene of a crime, that action alone does not prove they committed the crime; rather, it suggests a possibility that they may have been involved, leaving room for other interpretations.

Direct evidence, such as statements from eyewitnesses, provides straightforward proof of a fact, without the need for inference. Documentation of events might serve as direct evidence or context, but it does not inherently equate to circumstantial evidence. While all evidence obtained legally is important in the context of law enforcement and judicial proceedings, the definition of circumstantial evidence specifically relates to how that evidence is interpreted and the implications it holds in establishing a conclusion. Thus, the best definition of circumstantial evidence aligns with the idea of indirect implications leading to a conclusion.