It's unclear what you're referring to.
this is unquestionably a hypothetical question. It does not ask for judgment on known facts, but rather for judgment were certain conditions assumed to hold, that are not known now or then to hold. A hypothetical question is one answered on the basis of assumption, not on fact. You
confirmed that the question linked
supra was a hypothetical question. So you need to clarify what question you're now claiming is not hypothetical.
You correctly note that some of your critics have, instead of answering the hypothetical question, pointed out that your hypotheses are questionable. This is not inappropriate, given their knowledge of your previous attempts to convert hypotheticals and given my analysis above of your entire past few days' line of argument.
However it is not true that your question was not answered in the hypothetical. Since you couldn't be bothered to read my answer, I'll repeat it once more, expand upon it, and thereafter consign you to the throes of intentionally neglecting your critics answers.
Hypothesis (1) asked us to assume
arguendo the stains on the shroud were blood, by which I take you to mean human blood.
Hypothesis (2) asked us to assume
arguendo that blood would be more likely found on an authentic shroud than elsewhere.
It is unclear whether you intended these to be two separate elements of circumstantial evidence. This is relevant because it is unclear whether you've relaxed your claim that one element of circumstantial evidence alone can be probative of a specific question.
In any case they are not severable. (2) is not evidence separate from (1), but rather an argument intended to apply to (1). That is, it is an argument intended to persuade the reader that of all the possible things he can infer from (1), he should prefer the inference that the blood arrived on the shroud because it is an authentic burial shroud of Jesus.
Argument is not evidence.
Or to be more helpful, (2) is moot if there is no such thing as (1). Insofar as (2) arises from, and has life only by virtue of, hypothesis (1), they are not independent elements, nor is (2) evidence by any definition.
Hence you have presented only one element. One element doesn't make a circumstantial case for any particular proposition any more than one thread makes a burial shroud. What we learn from the online law references you cited but obviously never read is that a circumstantial case is woven from a body of evidence, a series of discrete and independent directly observable facts
from the totality of which can be reasonably inferred a single, particular proposition. The strength of a circumstantial case is vested in the body of it, not in how strenuously one believes in a single inference.
"Circumstantial evidence for authenticity" does not arise from one piece of evidence proffered to the exclusion of all others. "Circumstantial evidence for authenticity" would be the judgment, having taken all pertinent evidence into account, that the best explanation for
all of it is authenticity.
I have even shown how all your other hypotheticals rely upon this plurality of evidence, even if you yourself do not name them. It is suspicious that you do not address that.
(2) does not save you, cure the problem in your reasoning, or excuse you from considering other evidence. The other elements still apply. The nature of the weave applies. The carbon dating applies. The athropometrical anomaly applies. Taken together, the strength you propose to contrive by (2) simply does not overcome the rest of the evidence. It does not matter whether blood would be more likely to appear on an authentic burial cloth if the other evidence parsimoniously precludes authenticity, and therefore that the conclusion drawn by circumstantial reasoning requires that the blood arrive on the cloth -- however unlikely by presumption -- by artificial means. (2) does not allow the tail to wag the dog, no matter how many of its legs you ignore.
