Well, my previous quote from the legal definition of Direct vs Indirect (Circumstantial evidence gave the illustrations:
Originally Posted by Excon
If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann.
You see that, Excon? John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.
But, we know the two witnesses testified that they didn't even see the boys had anything other the a cell phone, so go figure with your imaginary gun.
You have been thoroughly refuted and utterly defeated in your ongoing craps by me with clear logic, reason, legal definition and with fact of witness testimonies. All you have is turning the table and accusing me of your own follies and acting out your false sense of indignation that doesn't even belong.