When it's somethnig utterly common, like breathing, sure. When it's something ultra niche though, like smashing the head of a human shaped figure with a hammer, then I think that qualifies as a direct tie. Like if I'm invited to a friend's house, then I sit in their Dad's chair and breathe -- no direct connection. But if I sit in their Dad's chair and give the exact same speech their Dad had made that morning in that chair -- then there's only a very small chance it's a coincidence. Most likely I talked to their Dad or spy on them or something
Well, for me proof just generally means something is very likely true, there is no such thing as absolute proof
I agree, it's frightening. I think that's how juries work already though, right? If they think you did it, they convict you
It's a serious question because my intuition tells me that in many many cases (hard to conjure a percentage without info) the guy found at the murder scene will actually be the murderer. Like, maybe I should complicate the situation a little, say it's a Shawshank Redemption type of example. Guy is found next to the body of his wife and her lover, he says it wasn't him, he says he saw some dude running away from the scene. He picked up the gun in shock though and now his fingerprints are all over it. Do we buy his story or do we convict him? I convict him, because 99 times out of 100 I'll probably be right. If I don't convict him then every dude who murders their cheating spouse will get away scot free if they've seen a popular movie