Which type of evidence is not directly related to the act but implies it?

Circumstantial evidence is used to imply the existence or truth of a claim without directly proving it. This type of evidence does not provide an eyewitness account or concrete proof of the act in question but instead relies on context and logical inference. For instance, if a person were seen running from a crime scene, that fact alone does not directly prove they committed the crime; however, combined with other pieces of evidence, it may strongly suggest their involvement. This indirect nature of circumstantial evidence makes it vital in forming conclusions based on a broader range of observations, circumstances, or facts that point toward a particular outcome. In contrast, direct evidence clearly establishes a fact, while testimonial evidence specifically refers to verbal accounts given by witnesses, which are considered more direct in nature.