People aren't supposed to be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. IANAL but I think this is very wrong. Obviously the court will prefer strong forensic

People aren't supposed to be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. IANAL but I think this is very wrong. Obviously the court will prefer strong forensic evidence if it can get it. But when it isn't, defendants can be, and are, convicted on circumstantial evidence, and this is not considered a miscarriage of justice. If a security recording captures someone whose face can be clearly seen to be that of the defendant, and the recording shows them actually committing the crime, okay, that's pretty hard evidence. Anything short of that -- their face isn't shown clearly, perhaps, or the recording shows them being in the area but doesn't prove they actually committed the crime -- and you start having to talk about probabilities. Even forensic evidence comes with probabilities attached. It's routine for fingerprint and DNA matches to be qualified with a probability of error. And often the true accuracy is overstated.