This is exactly right. Commenters here seem to think that the prosecution needs an airtight sequence of steps to prove guilt. Doesn't work like that. They will

This is exactly right. Commenters here seem to think that the prosecution needs an airtight sequence of steps to prove guilt. Doesn't work like that. They will say things like "we detected that Mullvad VPN was used to cover the perpetrator's tracks. Two days before the incident, the defendant bought a Mullvad VPN subscription over Amazon". They will then move on to the next piece of evidence. Legal cases are not code, they are often fuzzy and loose, and rely on human interpretation, with all its biases and emotions, to draw a conclusion.