Question

which of the following is true about circumstantial evidence? *
it directly proves a fact
it is unnecessary in investigations
it can imply a fact but not directly prove it
it is always biological

Explanation:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. It can imply a fact but does not directly prove it. Direct evidence directly proves a fact (e.g., eyewitness testimony of a crime being committed). Circumstantial evidence is often necessary in investigations as not all cases have direct evidence. It is not always biological; it can be physical (e.g., a weapon at a crime scene), documentary, etc.

Answer:

C. It can imply a fact but not directly prove it