There are many, many cases where juries have convicted with only circumstantial evidence. And, IIRC, circumstantial evidence generally holds the same weight as direct evidence. However, in this particular case AND at this particular point in the trial, I'm of the opinion the jurors will likely want more concrete evidence than has been presented. There could be more evidence to be presented in the days to come, AND it's very possible I'm completely wrong.

I wasn't suggesting circumstantial cases never result in the accused being convicted. Also, there's no Krystal Kenney-type witness in this trial as there was in the PF trial.