Final answer:
The idea that circumstantial evidence alone may establish how a crime was committed is true. Circumstantial evidence can lead to a logical conclusion about a crime, and when collectively persuasive, this can result in a conviction in a court of law, even in the absence of a weapon or direct evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
True: The statement that the way someone is killed may be proven entirely by circumstantial evidence even if a weapon is not used or if used, is not found is accurate. In the realm of forensic science and law, circumstantial evidence can indeed be used to construct a theory about how a crime transpired. This type of evidence refers to information or testimony that does not directly prove a fact, but allows a conclusion to be drawn based on the circumstances. For example, if someone were to be suspected of murder, elements such as motive, opportunity, indecent behavior after the fact, or even the absence of a weapon could contribute to a theory consistent with guilt.
Like in a scientific inquiry where a hypothesis isn't confirmed with absolute certainty but supported with a body of evidence, a legal case can also be built on the accumulation of circumstantial clues. The more the evidence aligns with the theory of the crime, the more likely it is that the hypothesis about how it took place will be considered valid in a court of law. Additionally, even though direct evidence such as an eyewitness account or a murder weapon can significantly strengthen a case, the presence of strong circumstantial evidence can sometimes suffice to establish how a crime was committed and ensure a conviction.