Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, but forming a reasonable doubt standard asks us to look at a fact-pattern based on all available evidence to corroborate inferences. Information like this is always incomplete, even when you get a confession!

The probability that a 737-MAX-style incident happened is known to be non-zero, but happening given the context is a statistically smaller expectation.

Think about it this way: lightning strikes randomly with some measurable frequency. If you see a felled tree, and a lumberjack is standing next to it with a running chainsaw, would you expect that lightning felled the tree?

Could still be the case, but come on, we’re talking about a highly fortified airspace in Tehran. Note, none of this informs how it happened. Just that you can’t say “other 737’s crashed!” and drop the math mic ;)