I didn't suggest that it said that. I am emphasizing fungibility specifically because most (maybe all) schemes I have seen that would add to bitcoin some kind of 'consumer protection' against theft would also make bitcoin non-fungibile, and useless as a currency. Additionally, NO currency that I am aware of has built-in consumer protections, and very likely cannot have such without giving up fungibility, and therefore utility as a currency - and that is the specific issue dealt with by the decision in this case.
This is true, but I don't think the bitcoin theft situation is in any meaningful way different than theft of cash in the form of any currency. Do you really think it would be easier to get your money back from some random thief that steals your wallet? I don't see the huge risk associated with bitcoin that doesn't exist with any other kind of cash, and that seems to be your thesis. I'm sure you will correct me if I am misinterpreting you.
As far as I know, this is true also - but bitcoin is still very new. I'm sure that you can find similar cases where cash money was stolen, and although there was a suspect who's guilt in the theft was deemed highly likely, sufficient legal proof for prosecution/recovery was not found.