@ASoapImpressionOfHisWifeWhichHeAte
I wonder what evidence the jury have seen that hasn't been made public because nothing I've seen makes me think that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial was over nine months long, with quite literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence. Complex testimony from medical experts.
The jury had access to all that information (unlike posters on Reddit etc) and found that in a number of the cases, she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
In other cases they didn't feel the evidence met the threshold legally to deliver a guilty verdict, though I'm sure that will have been difficult for those of them who felt on balance that it was likely she was guilty of all charges.
They've taken their job extremely seriously and understood the 'beyond reasonable doubt' threshold means a verdict can only be delivered if that threshold is absolutely met.
You say there's no smoking gun and it's 'very circumstantial' but there is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. Almost all evidence is in fact circumstantial, including DNA. It's a common misconception that circumstantial evidence is somehow 'bad' or poor quality evidence. This is not true.
The literally thousands of pieces of evidence over a trial taking more than nine months convinced a jury that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven murders and six attempted murders.