Why the Casey Anthony Jury Did Not Review the Evidence
If someone owes you ten dollars, and they repay you with a five dollar bill, two ones, and six quarters; you would know that you received less than ten dollars, without examining the five, the ones, and each quarter. You would know because you would recognize that the value of the money received is less than the ten dollar value required to repay the loan. You would know, without examining each piece of money given, that you received less value than ten dollars.
When a jury receives the evidence, they are instructed that EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME MUST BE PROVEN, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT . . . When an essential element is missing, in this case, the cause of death; the jury doesn't have to look at the evidence they have, to recognize what's missing! If the cause of death, murder, is not proven, how can they believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone did, what they don't know happened . . . You have to establish that a victim died by murder, before you can convict someone of murdering them.
The prosecution made up a possible cause of death, but it was effectively disproven (See Second Comment), leaving the jury without proof of an essential element of the crime, namely, proof that the death of Caylee Anthony was caused by murder. Absent the media driven demonization of Casey . . . the result was predictive.
Most Recommended Comment
Escondido, California, United States