Actually, there is evidence of how she died, and why. Hell, you reject the evidence for evolution, not surprising there are issues with evidence in your estimation.
The chloroform, the car, the 31 days unreported, the partying, the tape/bag, the hair, the cover up, the diary.
It's evidence. All evidence points to Casey murdering her daughter. No evidence points any other way. It's plausible to fantasize that she got a boyfriend to do it and she was just an accomplice, or that her father accidentally did it and they are just covering up. But those have no far less evidence to support them. Hence, you go with the evidence.
FHP: Florida Law
If you want to argue neglect, the primary care giver leaving a kid for 31 days who was killed, is trivially willful act resulting in physical harm. In some states that have to literally spell out the fact that abandonment is similarly punishable, all depends on how you interpret it.
Strawman. The argument is that leaving a child for 31 days is both:It's a crime to murder someone
It's not a crime if you don't confess to it.
Neglect (its abandonment, a willful act that resulted in death)
Evidence towards the murder charge i.e. covering up her murder as the theory goes.
I never claimed that she had no right to refuse that. Get it straight, and quote me next time, because you mispreprsented my position twice in a row.What is sick is thinking that people have no right to refuse to testify against themselves. You should read the constitution
She can refuse all she likes. If the evidence without further input from her, evidences no one but her for the death of her daughter, so be it. If she wants to testify that something else occured (presumably we call this evidence to the contrary, and how it's weighed the jury decides), so be it.
You are still getting it wrong, just like the jury.
Last edited by Mach; 07-06-11 at 12:40 PM.
j-macTo constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.
Depraved Indifference Law & Legal Definition
The noise this has generated is amazing. If you followed the trial at all then you can see where the state failed to make a case. They also overcharged the case.
A key ingredient, cause of death, was and still is missing.
Yes, it is terrible the child died. Should we then compound it by ignoring a thing called "reasonable doubt" as many are suggesting? The system worked. Lazy prosecution and grandstanding didn't.
A jury of 12 people weren't convinced by evidence presented. They were isolated from the media circus surrounding the trial for obvious reasons.
In the American Justice System there is a simple phrase that places the burden of proof on the prosecutor.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
Whether she did it or not is not the debate, the debate is that the prosecutor failed to remove reasonable doubt. They offered no cause of death and no motive. Without those no reasonable jury could in good conscience return a guilty verdict.
In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
Our laws are actually based on Blackstones common law.
All evidence 'suggests' a particular theory is correct or incorrect. It is up to interpretation whether or not you believe it's sufficient, or not.
For example, even hard science is considered "falsifiable", that is, there is no 100% confirmation even about something as obvious as gravity.
Wkipedia notes this!:
In the absence of other evidence, the kid was murdered. Tape, bag, lies, chloroform, 31 days, swamp. You think that evidence points to something other than murder?However, in an important sense all evidence is merely circumstantial because on no evidence can prove a fact in the absence of one or more inference