PJ,
Totally agree! The problem, as I see it, is that for some reason many people look at a case and analyze each circumstantial item in a vacuum. They say to themselves,
- "hey I propped a door at a hotel before, and I didn't kill anyone." or
- "hey I smoked a cigar outside of a hotel one night and I didn't kill anyone." or
- "I didn't lock my hotel room door so if JY didn't either that doesn't prove anything!"
For whatever reason <mod snip> they simply cannot or will not look at the totality of the circumstantial evidence and instead try to explain away each individual item as if that's the only item found and nothing else exists. I don't get it, but I see it happen all the time. In fact, it seems even more common to me now.
If you have a jury that does the same thing, and cannot or will not look at all the evidence, and tries to explain away each individual item apart from everything else, a conviction won't be obtained.