Casey Anthony rightfully was found not guilty

1. First degree murder was not the only charge Pro begins and ends his last round by showing that the evidence does not fit first degree murder. However, Pro clarified his resolution in round 1 by stating that Casey was found not guilty of the “more serious charges” set before her. Of those charges was also count 2, aggravated manslaughter. The following is the definition provided by the state of Florida(1): “The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder” Clearly, proving intent is not required. I did not think this would be necessary to discuss because by Pro stating “more serious charges”, I felt that the resolution was clear. Not to mention the fact that it would be pointless to debate weather she was rightfully found not guilty of only count 1, being that the public generally accepts that a not guilty verdict on this count is reasonable. Therefore aggravated manslaughter is the charge in question. 2. Deductive reasoning must be applied Pros round 2 argument is a perfect demonstration of what I feel went wrong in this trial. He is correct that there is no direct evidence of Casey’s guilt. However he has only demonstrated more in detail that a guilty verdict in this case can not be reached inductively. Deductive reasoning is a very basic and necessary form of reasoning by all people in everyday life. It is simply a process of drawing a conclusion by eliminating impossible or extremely unlikely alternatives. Test takers in high school and college become very familiar with this concept. Many times when taking a multiple choice exam we are faced with a question that we do not know the answer to. However if our choices are A, B, C, and D, and we know that A, B, and C are all incorrect, then we can easily conclude the correct answer to be D. To utilize only the logic of Pros round 2 argument, would be to say that… “the answer is not A, B, or C… but that doesn’t mean that it is D.” To be fair Pro did suggest that there were other possibilities, so my example is an exaggeration of his round 2 argument. However this concept does apply in this case, as I will show with my next contention. 3. The swimming pool accident is the only alternative to consider It is very important to understand that as I stated earlier, the jury is not told how to reach a verdict. This is an essential part of our justice system to ensure that the verdict is that of “the people” and not the government. The only limitations that are instructed to the jury, basically state that their verdict must be based only on the evidence presented and accepted by the judge. This is not specifically outlined however, so pieces of it are left for the jurors to reasonably interpret. Therefore how we interpret this instruction is a major factor in this debate. The following is my interpretation that I feel is beyond reasonable: The defense does not have the option of providing multiple stories that might explain the innocence of the defendant. In other words, they can not show multiple pieces of evidence and use them to say “well this story is a possibility, but here is another possibility… so if any of these possibilities seem reasonable to you then she is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. This is obviously an absurd notion that places an impossible burden on the Prosecution. Defense attorneys however do realize that not providing any contentions of innocence may be interpreted by the jury as evidence of guilt, even if it is not supposed to legally. With this realization the defense often does present their contention. In this case the defense made their contention clear that Caylee died in a swimming pool accident. They made this official by introducing evidence that supports this contention when they showed pictures of Caylee in that same swimming pool. From that point, the jury is able to narrow down their possibilities from all the other imagined theories of what may have happened to Caylee. To accept an imagined theory that was not at all supported, directly violates the judges instructions of basing their verdict on only the evidence presented. 4. The Defense Proving that any single piece of the story of the defense is false does not negate the entire story, but it does allow the jury to narrow down some aspects of what might have happened. Being that the defense made it clear that Caylee’s death was covered up by Casey and her father, combined with the evidence of the prosecution; there are no other reasonable suspects in this case besides Casey and her father. But there is no evidence or reason to suggest that George was involved. To make an accident appear as a murder is something that is conceivable for one person to somehow decide, it is not reasonable that two people would make this decision especially when one of them is a retired police officer. Combine this theory with the incredible incompetence demonstrated at the crime scene (as I described in round 1), along with Georges behavior being consistent with that of a reasonable person, and also along with George being the first person to report an issue by identifying the odor in the trunk as that of a dead body, and there is no reasonable way to conclude that George was involved in the incomprehensible and incompetent cover up of this “accident”. Now consider the possibility of this being an accident. Pro describes how loving Casey was of her daughter. Yet, consider that she loses her daughter in an “accident”, goes out partying for 31 days, gets a tattoo reading “beautiful life”, is found to posses a diary entry expressing her happiness in “making the right decision” which is coincidentally dated 4 days after the date which Caylee was last seen, continues to spend time with friends showing no change in her demeanor, lies emphatically to impede investigators efforts, and it is by no means reasonable that she is a women who innocently lost her daughter in an accident. The story of the defense is obviously false. 5. The Prosecution As outlined in round 1, we have Casey’s computer containing searches for “neck breaking”, “household chemicals” and “chloroform” (which was also found in her trunk of all places), a daughter that goes missing for 31 days, a mother who does not report it or show any remorse for it, an odor of a dead body discovered in that mothers trunk, a mother who lies for weeks misleading police in their investigation to find this missing child, and the dead body of this child found near a swamp in the woods wrapped in the same garbage bags and duct tape found in that mothers home among other things. It is clear what this concludes. 6. Defense vs. Prosecution = No Contest Every single piece of the Prosecutions story is overwhelmingly supported by the facts in this case. Meanwhile the basic contention (supported with little to no evidence) of the defense is overwhelmingly inconsistent with reality. Conclusion Although the defense does not have to prove innocence, the question is not weather the Prosecution proved every aspect of their case, but weather it is reasonable by any means to doubt the defendant’s guilt. I have shown that when being consistent with the evidence presented, such doubts are unreasonable. Jurors are not supposed to be mindless robots that use an instruction manual to reach a decision. They are supposed to think on their own with only few legal limitations. There is no way to doubt the defendant’s guilt in this case without intentionally closing your eyes to the facts. (1) http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net...