> If there is a true alibi exonerating someone, then there would have been no truthful evidence against him. You mistake evidence for proof. Evidence is stuff

> If there is a true alibi exonerating someone, then there would have been no truthful evidence against him. You mistake evidence for proof. Evidence is stuff like a witness that saw someone similar at the crime scene, a motive, the accused's DNA at the crime scene (left there before the crime, e.g. during a benign visit), an injury that could have been sustained during the struggle that led to a murder (but was actually sustained in an unrelated bar fight..), owned the same kind of unusual knife the victim was stabbed with (but lost it the night of the murder), etc. It suggests guilt, but leaves room for doubt. If 'truthful evidence' only existed against the guilty, then the single tiniest bit of evidence would be enough to convict.