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.
Damn. I'm just a scientist--one who has given forensic testimony in court. I guess I don' got no brainz...
You might keep in mind that despite the prosecution failing to convince the members of the jury (and others, obviously) that the founders believed also that those who escaped the judiciary but were guilty would still face another Judge. One who knows the facts.
Our system is designed to protect the innocent. Some of the guilty will slip through.
What I really want to know is why this is still top of the hour and the 'Fast and Furious' scandal, which promises to make Watergate look like a jaywalking ticket, is missing from my teevee?