That shows a confused understanding of the law. "Guilt" is a concept of the criminal law. It is obviously not the case that establishment of causality in, say, civil cases, has as a consequence that somebody has committed a criminal act.
THIS show a confused understanding of law.
Guilt, in the broader sense, is the premiss for liability, not liability itself, and simply means a breach of conduct.
This statement does not make sense. "Guilt" is not a concept which stands alone. One is "guilty of" something, where that something is proscribed by the law. I think what you are talking about here is the concept of "negligence", namely you are talking about someone being accused of some form of negligence ("gross negligence" is a criminal act in U.K. law, for example, but negligence is not) and being, for example in U.K. law, "guilty of gross negligence".
Guilt is a broader concept. Maybe in commom-law countries it is not frequently used in civil cases. But as I said, it simply means someone being deemed to have a breach of conduct. So your thoughts here start from the wrong premiss.
Of course you need a trial and you have to determine causality and whether the fact is proscribed by law to bring consequences or not. This is obvious and I am not discussing it
"Correlation" is a word used of phenomena in repeated events. That phenomenon A correlates with phenomenon B means that in many events, A and B do not occur independently of one another. In contrast, an accident is a unique event. One is best advised to use a concept of causality that does not depend completely on correlation.
If you deny correlation you deny causality.
No correlation to an event, no "cause" within the broader context.