Maybe we should not be mixing the meaning of "evidence" in a scientific context with the meaning in a legal context. Clearly science does not care about human laws, verdicts, juries, etc.. Different contexts, different meanings. Just because an unsupported claim can be valid legal evidence does not mean it can be scientific evidence.
In the scientific context it would still be considered 'evidence' of some kind because there is indeed a very very very small chance an alien in fact, in ground truth, stole the prized turnip for whatever reasons.
Or, in cases where corroborating evidence does not exist, one should believe the high frequence event causation rather than the low one first.
Sure, but it's still evidence to some degree.
Fair, I should have said "physical evidence" there for the missing items. My point was more that there is a difference, even if you can lump them in a very broad category term.