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.
They aren’t lacking a precise sequence, they’re lacking any sequence. They don’t know what was done to kill the kid at all, and they don’t know when it happened at all, and they can’t put anybody’s hands on the unknown action that killed the kid. To get a murder conviction the prosecution needs to be able to say “person X did action Y at around time T which lead to the death of the victim”. There’s no misunderstanding from the jury, when the best you’ve got is “person X did something we’re not sure about in a time frame we’re completely unclear on” you’re not going to get a murder conviction.
It DOES matter how she did it. Because if you can’t say how she did it you can’t say beyond a reasonable doubt THAT she did it.
Reasonable doubt doesn’t require the defense to have a good explanation, it just needs the prosecution to not have a good explanation. And the prosecution has NO explanation. They tried to convict on guy instinct, and while I agree with that guy instinct that ain’t evidence.