Not true, but you are still missing the point. There does not have to be a scientific test showing a connection between Casey and the cause of death to get a conviction.
"To get a murder conviction the prosecution needs to be able to say “person X did action Y at around time T which lead to the death of the victim”."
No, they don't. The prosecution needs to present sufficient evidence to show that person X caused the death. That evidence *does not have to be forensics*.
"It DOES matter how she did it. Because if you can’t say how she did it you can’t say beyond a reasonable doubt THAT she did it."
As I've been saying, that is simply wrong. But it is the same error that I believe the jury made and resulted in their verdict. It is what the defense told them.
How she did it is not a required element. You can be sure she did it without knowing the precise method if all the other evidence says she must have done it.
"Reasonable doubt doesn’t require the defense to have a good explanation, it just needs the prosecution to not have a good explanation."
I never said the defense had to provide one. But there does have to be room for one. If there's no other reasonable explanation then there's no reasonable doubt.
"They tried to convict on guy instinct, and while I agree with that guy instinct that ain’t evidence."
No, they tried to convict on the evidence, but the jury didn't understand that all that evidence counted and it was their job to make reasonable inferences from it. They thought it should work like it does on CSI.
No it is true. I’ve got the point just fine. I’m not asking for a scientific test. I’m pointing out that if you can’t prove the cause of death you can’t proved WHO caused the death. It’s just that simple, any thinking otherwise is simply wrong.
See look, straight from one of the juror’s mouths:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-jury-suspicious-george-anthony-trial/story?id=14050196
“As with other jurors who have been interviewed, the foreman said the panel was unconvinced by the evidence that Casey Anthony, 25, murdered her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee — and was not even certain that a murder was committed.
“We don’t know the cause of death,” the juror said. “Everything was speculation.” “
See that’s what happens when you can’t manage to list a cause of death. Without cause of death it could have been an accident, without cause of death you don’t have an active verb, without cause of death everything is speculation. Speculation doesn’t give you “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
In a way, it’s sort of like when a new heavenly object is first detected.
You can’t actually see it, but you know it’s there.
You see it’s gravitational impact on it’s neighbors.
You may even see light distorted from other objects farther away than it is.
Taking all the evidence into consideration, it’s there.
In the Casey Anthony case, in the end, only one person could have done it. When she said it was an accident, after making other claims prior to that, the gig was up. Whatever happened, happened at her hand. You couple that with not wanting the police involved. You check the condition of the body. You realize what her social activity was, the celebratory nature of it, the tattoo. Looking up information just prior to the kid’s disappearance.
In the end, there’s simply no other conclusion to be had.
I think of it like little spheres circling Casey, each showing the influence of her gravitational pull. At a certain point, the conclusion is obvious without a shadow of a doubt.
I should have added one more thought.
You also notice an important observation at some point, that all those objects floating around Casey, aren’t floating around anyone else. None of them.