Sometimes circumstantial cases are the strongest cases - if there are enough circumstances. Circumstantial cases rely on a number of pieces of evidence, as opposed to one confession (which may be ruled inadmissable) or one eyewitness (who may admit at trial that they were not wearing their glasses). In Mr. Cook's case the issue was the identity of the driver of the snowmobile during the crash that killed the victim. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Mr. Cook's conviction, saying "the trial judge proceeded to consider the many strands of circumstantial evidence and then assessed their cumulative effect." There must have been many strands of circumstantial evidence - the appeal judgment states that the trial lasted 45 days.  R. v. Cook, 2016 ONCA 794