Circumstantial evidence becomes compelling only when there's a lot of it, all in one direction, without exonerating or at least contradictory evidence of some kind.
If you have white robes with pointy hats, a noose, and a Confederate flag in your closet, I'm very comfortable assuming certain facts about you. If you can come up with a good explanation - perhaps you're an actor in a play about the civil rights era - I'm prepared to shift that conclusion, but "nuh uh, this doesn't prove anything!" isn't a compelling response to it.
But if I found out that a black person had a picture of a white person on his computer under the "C" drive, I wouldn't assume that he named the drive "C" for cracker, and wouldn't expect him to prove the "real reason" his drive was named "C"
Agreed!
If, however, all the other drives were named "Photos" and "Recipes" and other descriptive terms, leaving only the C drive as a letter, that'd be interesting. Even more interesting if it's a bunch of photos of white people, and nothing much else on said C drive. If that same person had previously criticized civil rights issues, and was cagey about why they have the one oddly-named drive (https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xl8bj2/com...), and had a history of putting out racially-focused mods for a game, we might begin to get outright suspicious.
This is what circumstantial evidence is all about; more than one data point leading to a reasonable conclusion. You seem to want to redefine it to a single data point, which giving it's been explained several times now, I have to assume (circumstantial again!) is playing dumb intentionally.