Corpus delicti may be proved by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence or by either alone. When an attempt is made to prove corpus delicti by circumstantial evidence, the general rule is that the evidence must be so conclusive as to eliminate all reasonable doubt in concluding that a crime was committed.  First, list those instances/crimes where having to use circumstantial evidence may be the only option.  Secondly, list those factors that make the use of circumstantial evidence the only way to try and prove corpus delicti. Last, what role (if any) do you believe circumstantial evidence should have in the prosecution of a capital offense, and why?