There are murderers sitting in jail today that were convicted with less evidence, and they be must wondering at Casey’s good luck.
Some even convicted without the presence of a dead body.
My thoughts are that - some juries confuse “no doubt” with “reasonable doubt”.
There is a bit over on hotair that highlights another possibility - that with many americans hooked on shows like CSI, there is probably a misunderstanding now that there should always be a forensic smoking gun.
More and more you hear people talk about circumstantial evidence as if it is “no” evidence at all.
Circumstantial can be just as important - and helps connect the dots.
My thoughts are that - some juries confuse “no doubt” with “reasonable doubt”.
Or to put it still another way, they don’t realize that their own personal doubt is an unreasonable doubt.
Or perhaps they just give up on deciding what is reasonable vs. unreasonable, and as you suggest they just reinterpret it to “no doubt”.