Circumstantial evidence often requires what to validate a conclusion?

Circumstantial evidence relies heavily on the use of logical deductions to support conclusions drawn from the evidence presented. When only indirect evidence is available, it becomes necessary to connect the dots through reasoning and inference. This means that one must logically deduce that a specific situation or event is the likely outcome based on the circumstances surrounding it.

While direct testimony and corroborative evidence can strengthen a case, they are not essential for circumstantial evidence to be considered valid. Additionally, a judge's approval pertains more to the legal process and does not play a role in validating conclusions drawn from circumstantial evidence. Thus, the reliance on logical deductions is crucial for making sense of circumstantial evidence and forming a coherent conclusion.