Evidence is a pointer that might indicate guilt but is not conclusive.
Proof is an irrefutable indicator of guilt.
Sometimes, several pieces of evidence, none of them on their own conclusive, can collectively amount to proof.
The conviction of Peter Voisey is a classic example.
There was no, smoking-gun proof of his guilt. But several pieces of evidence.
He was on the sex-offenders' register and therefore capable of the crime. That fact wasn't presented to the jury, but will no doubt have influenced the police and CPS in pressing charges.
His mobile phone placed him the "right" area at the time of the crime. There was a weak DNA correlation, although DNA might have conclusively ruled him out.
A footprint recovered from the wet bathroom floor precisely matched the pattern of a pair of shoes he owned.
The little girl was an excellent witness, although her evidence was never released. Maybe she was able to describe details of the interior of his car, or items of clothing he possessed (we can only guess).
There was an entry in his diary: it's finished. He claimed that referred to Christmas (the crime was just after Christams).
None of that, on its own, would have been sufficient to convict.
Collectively, it all amounted to a compelling case.
For me, proof of the innocence of the McCanns is the absence of evidence that Kate and Gerry were simultaneously absent from the restaurant at any point between their joint arrival and Kate's alert at 2200.
Collaboration would have been required to pull off a crime such as that of which they were accused.
Without collaboration, mission impossible ...
