With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". based on the defendant’s statement in the letter. Id. at 93. In Zimmerman, like in Robertson, there is some evidence (i.e., confession, correspondence) upon which rational inferences could be made regarding the defendant’s actions and linking the defendant with the missing items. In the instant case, any inferences would be based wholly on speculation arising from the missing wallet and appellant’s belief that Wayne or the Martindales owed him money. While direct evidence is not required to support a finding that the evidence is legally sufficient, the circumstances amount only to suspicion here. And we have previously emphasized that “[i]f the evidence at trial raised only a suspicion of guilt, even a strong one, then that evidence is insufficient.” Urbano, 837 S.W.2d at 116-17 (<HOLDING>). Point of error three is sustained. Because

A: holding evidence legally insufficient where it only raised strong suspicion of guilt but not proof to high degree of certainty under jackson
B: holding that in light of strong evidence of guilt tainted evidence was harmless under brecht
C: holding evidence legally sufficient
D: recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof
A.