This is what I've been talking about. I'm sure the jury thought the same way. But this is wrong. One, "evidence" does not mean "proof". There certainly was lots of evidence that Casey killed that child. Her conduct was evidence.
You certainly can, and almost always have to, infer from the evidence to come to a verdict. That's what juries are supposed to do. There is no requirement, legal or logical, that there be scientific forensic proof of a specific act to find someone guilty of a crime. A jury is *supposed* to infer from the evidence and convict if there is no *reasonable* doubt (not irrational doubt) that the accused is guilty.
There is no other reasonable explantion for all the facts in this case except that Casey did it. When you go through it all, you look at the forensics, you look at her behavior, you look at everything, there is no other reasonable interpretation. That should equal a conviction. That is how it's supposed to work.
I appreciate the way you worded that. I agree completely.
Problem is they don’t have the evidence. They can’t even say how the child was killed, much less put Casey’s hands as doing the actions that did it. The evidence is supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. When the prosecuting attorney says they don’t know how or when the death happened the evidence isn’t proving much of anything.