The Physical Model was based on the idea that people did not really understand

The Physical Model was based on the idea that people did not really understand the work involved in the digital forensics world or how to treat it in court. With all the crime dramas on television, the average juror may now think that everything can be resolved in 60 minutes and is based on perfect DNA physical evidence and the digital "smoking gun" always found on the criminal's computer.  

How would you tailor your approach and reporting to address the fact that the jury may now think that without 100% conclusive evidence, the person should not be found guilty?  Please avoid discussions about the presumption of innocence or a position that circumstantial evidence is never sufficient to find someone guilty.  This discussion is for you to consider how you would convince someone that your circumstantial evidence is sufficient and how to counter the idea that perfect evidence is always available.