Author Topic: Casey Anthony Trial  (Read 4897 times)

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13922
Re: Casey Anthony Trial
« Reply #165 on: July 09, 2011, 10:12:37 AM »
IIRC from watching a blurb from the only juror to consent to an interview, they did consider manslaughter. The sticking point was the lack of ability to show cause of death. On that basis I have to partially agree with what she said. The prosecution simply lacked the evidence. This may just have been one of the few that will have to have slipped between the cracks of the justice system. It is not a presumption of guilt, of that there was and is plenty. It is a case of beyond a reasonable doubt and there was not enough of direct provable evidence to lead to the conclusion that she, or her mother, or her father were the ones to have done the deed.

IMO she did murder her child. That she was found not guilty does not mean she did not do it, it just means that she was not convicted of doing it. Sometimes things happen that cannot meet the requirements of the courts, irregardless of the actual events.

The child deserved a better family but didn't get it. May she rest in peace.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline jimson

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7202
      • The Axis vs Allies Arena
Re: Casey Anthony Trial
« Reply #166 on: July 09, 2011, 02:36:51 PM »
Well said Maverick.

Offline 1sum41

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
      • devil dog squadron
Re: Casey Anthony Trial
« Reply #167 on: July 09, 2011, 06:20:11 PM »
 :noid :bolt:

Offline Sonicblu

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 653
Re: Casey Anthony Trial
« Reply #168 on: July 10, 2011, 07:47:12 PM »
The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

It should be a reasonable doubt most don't understand the legal definition.

That she could have drowned ( without help ) is a doubt, it is not reasonable based on the evidence.

Using inductive logic it is impossible to prove anything. Going into a case like this there is going to be some doubt.

It has to be reasonable doubt based on the evidence, not the lack thereof.