“But ultimately there was not enough proof presented to the jury to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that she killed her daughter.”
How so? You are able to make inferences based on evidence or the lack of evidence. For example, there is no direct evidence that the child at the cookies. There are missing cookies and there is a child with cookie crumbs on hand and mouth. You would require more evidence because you are assuming that there are other “reasonable” explanations for the missing cookies and the visible crumbs.
The physical evidence showed that the dead daughter had been in the mother’s car trunk. The mother lied to everyone about her daughter’s whereabouts.
You want a videotape, or an exact time and sequence of death. That is not required by law.
If there is a “reasonable doubt” can you give it to me? What is a reasonable explanation for the mother’s behavior? We know she lied about her daughter’s whereabouts after she went missing and we know she partied hard during that time. We know her dead daughter’s body had been placed in her car trunk at some point. So, let’s hear your reasonable doubt. Dazzle me.
“You are able to make inferences based on evidence or the lack of evidence.”
Yes juries do this all the time. BUT there still wasn’t enough here. Here it was if the cookies disappeared and the child had a stomach ache. Without more to show the cookies were consumed by the child to cause the stomachache there’s not enough there. Even the mere fact the child is the only other person around would make the case stronger but again the prosecution failed to reach this level with the Anthony case.
“For example, there is no direct evidence that the child at the cookies. There are missing cookies and there is a child with cookie crumbs on hand and mouth. You would require more evidence because you are assuming that there are other “reasonable” explanations for the missing cookies and the visible crumbs.”
Like I said, it’s not a circumstantial v. direct evidence issue its a value of evidence issue. You can support convictions wholly on circumstantial evidence IF it is strong enough. Here the prosecution simply didn’t put on a strong enough case to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
“You want a videotape, or an exact time and sequence of death. That is not required by law.”
Did you completely ignore what I said in my last post? Video, DNA, eyewitnesses- none of it is actually necessary. What you do need though is enough evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed her daughter. The prosecution failed to do so. The type of evidence is irrelevant except that certain evidence is more probative than others. You don’t need direct evidence and circumstantial is fine IF it is enough by itself. This wasn’t enough.
“If there is a “reasonable doubt” can you give it to me? What is a reasonable explanation for the mother’s behavior?”
It doesn’t matter. The burden lies with the prosecution. All the defense has to show is that there are holes in the prosecution’s theory or that it otherwise fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the criminal act. The jury is granted discretion, assuming it is not wholly unfounded and against all of the evidence, to decide for itself as the factfinder whether the prosecution’s case in light of the defense’s claims was adequately proven beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the jury it wasn’t here. The defense need not prove anything. That’s just how our system is set up.