This happens a lot in the Trials and Errors section. People here like to claim that the evidence does not rise to the bar of reasonable doubt, but we seem to forget that we get a view of the evidence that is fed to us by the media. That will necessarily not be a complete view, even if the reporters don't have some agenda they are pushing. Anybody who wants to dissent the judge's view needs to acquaint themselves with
all the evidence (props for listening to the whole judgement btw).
Yes, judges and juries do get things wrong but it is quite arrogant to assume that this is the case based on what might be an incomplete view of the evidence. The safest assumption is that the judge and jury are better informed about the facts of the case than we are (and the judge is better informed about the law) and, therefore, if we disagree, it is probably us that are wrong.
Another issue is that people misinterpret "beyond reasonable doubt". They tend to assume it means "beyond all doubt" or "any conceivable doubt", in the words of Stellafane. It does not mean that at all. You could construct any number of alternate explanations for the disappearance of Dawson's wife but they have to be reasonable. Kidnapping by drug lords is possible, but it's not reasonable, given the context.
As an aside, I listened to the Infinite Monkey Cage podcast on Sunday about
how to commit the perfect murder. Disappointingly the experts on the panel didn't know the answer because, if it is the perfect murder, then by definition, they haven't found it. Anyway, the top tip was "do not dismember the body".