Take it all together and it certainly seems like circumstantial evidence linking Nichols to the robbery, if in fact a robbery occurred.

From what I have seen, there seems to be some circumstantial evidence which might lead one to think that some of the defendants at least may be guilty, I haven't seen anything which would enable a conviction to be brought.

Circumstantial evidence shows that someone took the knife from the scene.

Some circumstantial evidence is very strong as when you find a trout in the milk

There have always been questions about reliability (of) other types of evidence -- eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. Once they see the DNA evidence, there's no question. You are either guilty or not guilty.

It looks like Alan was the victim of a robbery. It seems like he was hit from behind. He doesn't remember anything.