This is literally what circumstantial evidence is

Emphasis mine. You’re making a fool of yourself by confusing legal and moral matters, even if I’m clearly talking about the later.

But let’s bite. This is simply incorrect. The mere fact someone is able to do something is not, by itself, circumstantial evidence they did it. You’d need to pile up multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence, until you can brush off any reasonable doubt they did it, before you said “we got circumstantial evidence!”

For example. If someone took a photo, through a window, of Bezos’ computer in a room, and nobody but Bezos had access to that room, and the photo showed CSAM in Bezos’ computer, that would be circumstantial evidence.

You’re asking for direct evidence but both are evidence one is just much stronger than the other

No, assumer, I’m not restricting it to direct evidence.

Im satisfied with circumstantial evidence here to a mere preponderance. A criminal court allows circumstantial or direct evidence but it must prove the thing beyond a reasonable doubt in America.

Again, I am talking about moral principles. (Plus, do laws in the banana republic maize dictatorship bordering Canada even matter? Even if he got CSAM in his computer, Trump would pardon him. And the moral issue would still remain.)

I’m not a court I can freely accept circumstantial evidence and make a conclusion that isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt

Bezos can ligma. If that filth got cancer and died a painful death, I’d consider it great news.

However. The fucking principle matters. A lot. And pieces of shit eager to violate it are a dead weight and a burden to humankind. Because they don’t do it only towards filth like Bezos; they point their fingers hooves at other people around them, and make a hell out of their lives.

And what you said is the same as “I don’t give a crap about being just, I’m OK blaming people even when there’s a reasonable chance they aren’t at fault”.

Not wasting my time further with you.