Yes, indeed.
I've heard a some folks downplay circumstantial evidence more than once since I've been here on WS. Some say that they think it is weak. They want "direct evidence." If we stop to think about or count how many times we have seen direct evidence in these trials we watch, we come up very short indeed with our direct evidence numbers. The defendants rarely testify. Eyewitnesses are very, very scarce. Obviously, murder victims cannot testify on the witness stand, but their blood, other fluids, and bodies surely can. Weapons testify as well, as do fingerprints, footprints, iphones/tower pings, automobile odometers, DNA, autopsy reports/toxicology/ME testimony, security cameras, receipts, SM, and so much more. And many defense attorneys and prosecutors will agree that eyewitness testimony is often the weakest and least dependable evidence of all.
We should never underestimate the value of circumstantial evidence.