Which type of evidence relies heavily on inference rather than direct observation?

Circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence that suggests a conclusion based on the circumstances surrounding a situation, rather than direct observation or firsthand accounts. This form of evidence allows for inference to be drawn from the facts presented, meaning that it requires the observer to connect the dots and infer a relationship between the evidence and the conclusion. For example, if a person is seen leaving the scene of a crime just after it occurred, this serves as circumstantial evidence linking them to the crime, yet it does not directly observe the person committing the act.

In contrast, direct evidence provides straightforward proof of a fact, such as eyewitness testimony or a video recording of an event, leaving little room for interpretation. Testimonial evidence consists of statements made by witnesses, which can be direct or circumstantial. Documentary evidence includes written materials that can support a claim but may also require interpretation to connect to the conclusion being argued. Circumstantial evidence is unique in its reliance on inferential reasoning, making it a crucial aspect of many legal cases where direct evidence may not be available.