If that was the case, how come the State could not even prove a cause of death?
Surely, in order to ascertain that someone was murdered, you would have to know what the person died of?
In the absence of proof, you can't prove murder, much less who did it.
The standard is not one of what we suspect, no matter how strongly, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the child might have died other than from the malicious actions of another person, there is the reason for doubt. It was not proven otherwise.
What I think happened is irrelevant. It is a question of what can be proven.
Tamper with that standard at all our peril.
A 2 year old child was murdered.
If that was the case, how come the State could not even prove a cause of death?
Surely, in order to ascertain that someone was murdered, you would have to know what the person died of?
In the absence of proof, you can’t prove murder, much less who did it.
The standard is not one of what we suspect, no matter how strongly, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the child might have died other than from the malicious actions of another person, there is the reason for doubt. It was not proven otherwise.
What I think happened is irrelevant. It is a question of what can be proven.
Tamper with that standard at all our peril.
I think you are missing the point here. It wasn’t proven to dummies. People with brains know she is guilty and the prosecuter proved it.
A 2 year old child was murdered.
If that was the case, how come the State could not even prove a cause of death?
Surely, in order to ascertain that someone was murdered, you would have to know what the person died of?
In the absence of proof, you can’t prove murder, much less who did it.
The standard is not one of what we suspect, no matter how strongly, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the child might have died other than from the malicious actions of another person, there is the reason for doubt. It was not proven otherwise.
What I think happened is irrelevant. It is a question of what can be proven.
Tamper with that standard at all our peril.
I think you are missing the point here. It wasn’t proven to dummies. People with brains know she is guilty and the prosecuter proved it.
“If that was the case, how come the State could not even prove a cause of death?”
Forget about Casey Anthony for a moment. Nevermind the particulars of the case. For someone to say what you just said, and mean it, it totally ignorant of how the law works. The fact that you could end up on a jury and hold onto such ignorance is perhaps an inevitable flaw of any system of justice in our imperfect world, but it is nonetheless sad.
No, you wouldn't. Not if the circumstances otherwise tell you that the death was the act of another person. You don't necessarily require a medical diagnosis. That's part of the fundamental misunderstanding that let the jury make this mistake.