Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
Listened to a prosecutor a few years ago talking about how juries have come to expect C.S.I Vegas like evidance and it is becominging increasingly difficult for the crown to 'prove' cases to juries who expect concrete forensic evidense even though very few cases don't have some element of circumstantial evidance.
I suspect this is a case that would have been found guilty 10 years ago when juries were expected to use some common sense.
|
I never really followed the case, but from what I gather the problem wasn't that the evidence wasn't CSI level evidence, but the fact the evidence was non-existent.
The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's no actual link to the murder, then reasonable doubt starts to creep up.
The viewing public also saw a lot more than the jury did, and heard more court proceedings than the public did. It's also easy for the public to say "yeah she did it" but the proof has to be there.
What's worse than letting a murder go free?
Convicting an innocent person.
Why lie to the police? Donald Marshall did, he was terrified. Fear makes people do illogical things. Perhaps they think the police will twist the truth, so lying is a better option? No one doubted Marshall's conviction, yet he was the most famous wrongfully accused man of murder in our country until David Milgaard.
Lying to the police does not equal murder. You need (or at least I pray to God you have) more than that to convict.
Again, I'm not defending Casey Anthony, I don't really know the case just responding to a few things I've read here. But, beyond a reasonable doubt needs to be met. From what I'm gathering here, the prosecution wasn't even in the ballpark.