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.
Nope, that's wrong. The trial wasn't a science experiment. You don't have to have a scientifically proven precise sequence showing exactly what the defendent did. It is not necessary to prove a specific medical cause of death at some specific instant. This is what I believe was the fundamental misunderstanding the led the jury.
The question for the jury was, did Casey kill the child? It doesn't matter how she did it, or what time she did it. Just, did she do it? Yes, that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But that does not mean scientifically and technically.
There is no *reasonable* scenario except that Casey did it. All of her actions show that she did it. It is *reasonable* doubt. Not irrational doubt.