You're right, you're not a lawyer. I am. Cases get proven all the time on circumstantial evidence, even in criminal law where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, circumstantial proof. Get it?
Perhaps this will help -
From Wikipedia:
Validity of circumstantial evidence[edit]
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly assumed to be the most powerful.[4] Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [5] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
