Legal Considerations And More Westerns About Vengeance

Here's a question for you. Can circumstantial evidence be overwhelming?

We were watching Charlie Chan in London last night, and the attorney of a man facing hanging for murder described the trial that way, There was no concrete evidence, but the the victim and the accused were heard having an argument and that sort of thing was apparently enough. It feels like circumstantial evidence, by its definition, can't be overwhelming. You can have a lot of it, but it's all still reliant on other evidence and inference. I mean, the Brits considered it sufficient, but inhabitants of a fictional 1930s London can hardly be considered a definitive decision.

Then there was Chato's Land, where Charles Bronson plays a half-Apache who lures a posse into the desert, initially trying to lose it, but then opting for vengeance when they find his home and commence with rape and pillage. I was sorely disappointed by Jack Palance's character, who showed a startling lack of spine (also craziness) for a Jack Palance character. He could have kept things much less bloody if he had curbed the looney toon racist, faux-religious jackoff and his brothers. By curbed, I open to anything from pistol-whipping to just shooting them.