Okay, Richard, so I think maybe you're being consistent now.  

 I believe, however, if a woman was knocked down and unconscious -- or maybe let's say she just fainted -- and there was no witness including herself to a  robbery, yet someone was found a block away with her purse soon thereafter, the circumstantial evidence may well be enough to convict for robbery.   Even if she's asked whether she might have agreed to give her purse away and says I don't remember.  The law doesn't require proof beyond any doubt.  It's a question of whether a doubt is reasonable given all the circumstances.

Blatchford has some comments on this in the NP, her point being that the Halifax court can't simply ignore all of the circumstantial evidence and just rely on the lack of memory to acquit.  Not that anybody knows whether that's an accurate assessment without having heard the evidence, but it is implied in the judge's verbal reasons, which are what is causing all the outrage.