RSBM
Because my main anorak focus/fascination is crime scene staging, i've found it quite interesting what "people want' in terms of evidence, and why so much doubt is exhibited over seemingly obvious things. My 02c observations
1. Direct Evidence - you'll often see people demanding 'direct' evidence like blood spatter on the defendant's clothes, and in absence of such evidence, claim the case is purely circumstantial. Such spatter is actually circumstantial - so what i believe they really mean is they don't like making inferences unless there is truly no other possibility.
2. Priced in evidence - sometimes the best evidence against the accused is known from the start and becomes priced in... so somehow the prosecution requires even better evidence if they have no surprise bombshell. IMO Pistorius is the gold standard of this phenomenon. He was fairly obviously guilty from the start, but then what was known was treated as simply the baseline for a contrarian defence where somehow only defence counsel had understood the 'real timeline'
3. Wild speculation ≠ reasonable possibilities - anything that is speculated into existence by defence counsel, somehow has to be disproved. Even where the defendant himself never actually asserted the thing in a statement that is in evidence.
It's fascinating in the current case where the defendant obstructed the investigation, staged the crime scene and constructed a false alibi and it is obvious he is the reason why we don't have the spatter, the murder weapons etc, TV experts nevertheless complain the case is weak compared to some alternate case they imagine could be presented.
Yet how can any of this be explained short of his guilt?
We basically do have half a dozen notarised confession videos ... but somehow they are seen as a point of departure