I'd say the difference is pretty simple: true evidence needs to be verifiable. Scientific studies provide evidence by describing the experiments/procedures needed to reproduce its claims.
Evidence for untrue things is still evidence, if it is verifiable. However, there is such thing as "no evidence". Crazy Carl's claim by itself would not be verifiable, therefore it is not evidence.
Evidence for untrue things is still evidence, if it is verifiable. However, there is such thing as "no evidence". Crazy Carl's claim by itself would not be verifiable, therefore it is not evidence.