Which of the following types of evidence refers to proof based on indirect indications?

Circumstantial evidence refers to proof based on indirect indications, meaning it does not directly prove a fact. Instead, it relies on a series of circumstances or evidence that, when considered together, can lead to a reasonable inference about what occurred. For instance, if a person is seen leaving a crime scene while it is still being investigated, their presence might suggest involvement, but it does not directly confirm it.

This type of evidence is often used in legal settings where direct evidence—like eyewitness testimony or a confession—is not available. Circumstantial evidence can be compelling when enough supportive pieces of evidence are linked together to paint a picture of what happened.

In contrast, direct evidence involves clear proof of a fact, such as an eyewitness account stating they saw the crime occurring. Testimonial evidence includes statements made by witnesses, while physical evidence pertains to tangible objects collected during an investigation, like fingerprints or weapons. Each of these categories operates differently in the context of establishing guilt or innocence, but circumstantial evidence uniquely thrives on the idea of interpretation based on indirect proof.