Casey Anthony rightfully was found not guilty

Pro begins his final round making a point by asking the following question: “how do we expect 12 jurors to convict a girl who by all right was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt did any crime?” I have answered this question very clearly with my argument. Pro has not addressed it. Deductive Reasoning Pro has made no attempt to acknowledge this concept. His argument demonstrates my analogy. Apparently he does not believe that we can know the answer is D, even if we can exclude A, B, and C. On the other hand if he does believe A, B, or C are reasonable possibilities he has made no attempt to show why. Swimming Pool Alternative Pro has made no attempt to acknowledge this concept either. This is a major part of any trial similar to this one. Again, the defense does not have to prove innocence but they do not have the luxury of providing the court with multiple pieces of evidence to support multiple theories. In this reality there is only one story of what happened. Rebuttals Her Activity: Pro states that Casey’s actions in no way prove guilt. I never said that they did. I did however explain that these actions are an established fact that was presented as evidence in court. They are an indication of what happened and can not be ignored. Behavior is not usually strong evidence of anything in court, but when the behavior is as incomprehensible as Casey’s, it would quite frankly make it foolish to suggest that it does not mean anything. Car: Pro points out minor facts to apparently suggest that there are other possibilities as to the story of the car. I find it interesting that Pro did not have any details to try to explain the crime scene, the google searches, Casey’s behavior, or any reasons why we should actually believe the swimming pool story. But as far as the evidence for the car, Pro suggests that other people had access to it. This is a perfect example of why I find Pros doubts to be unreasonable. Every time we accept a minor detail like this we must apply it to reality. To suggest that someone else had access to the car, serves only to suggest that someone else might have killed Caylee. For this to be true Casey would then be the victim of what someone else did to her child, and her response is to go out partying with her friends among getting the tattoo and everything else. However if someone else was simply involved then Casey would still be guilty of manslaughter by culpable negligence so that idea would not change the verdict. “There is no clear evidence that proves she did it, making it a reasonable doubt that she did the crime” Pro is suggesting that there is no clear evidence, because he is only looking for evidence that matches his specific criteria. This demonstrates one of the biggest misconceptions about our judicial system. The burden of proof does rest on the Prosecution. This however does not mean that the Prosecution must have specific required elements to qualify for a conviction. The jury in any trial is expected to think and rationalize as any normal reasonable person would. No reasonable person looks at this situation and disregards the facts about Casey’s strange behavior, the numerous amounts of evidence that make her by far the most likely perpetrator, and the lack of a coherent alternative possibility. Pro seems to suggest that we must have X, Y, and Z before a jury can convict. If that were the case there would not be a trial in the absence of such required evidence. The law also makes this very understandable by its definitions of proof and reasonable doubt. Proof: “The establishment of a fact by the use of evidence. Anything that can make a person believe that a fact or proposition is true or false. It is distinguishable from evidence in that proof is a broad term comprehending everything that may be adduced at a trial, whereas evidence is a narrow term describing certain types of proof that can be admitted at trial.”(1)When applying this to reasonable doubt... Reasonable Doubt:“If the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors 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.” What is unreasonable is to disregard established facts which were presented as evidence that clearly point to Casey being guilty of culpable negligence at the very least, simply because it does not meet some imagined criteria of what the Prosecution must present. Jurors need to take everything into account. If Casey is not guilty then something else happened. The story presented by the defense is that she drowned in the swimming pool. Given everything that we know, this would have to be considered a somewhat reasonable alternative for the jurors to have a reasonable doubt. Considering the facts established by the Prosecution it clearly does not pass. “In the court of law we can not expect a jury to convict a girl just based on her actions during a period of time.” I have clearly shown that there is physical evidence in her car, computer, and at the crime scene all linking Casey to Caylee’s death, and all showing that this was in no way consistent with an accident. If it was not purely an accident then manslaughter at the least is the only other possibility. “The killer was never truly identified or the murder weapon. Coroners for the prosecution couldn't even determine the cause of death.” A verdict must be decided based on the evidence we have, not the evidence we don’t. Conclusion While I understand and respect Pros position I have shown why it is unjustified. If there was not enough evidence in this case then I could accept the verdict that was given. But coming to a not guilty verdict in this trial can not be done reasonably without disregarding the facts presented, which itself is unreasonable. First degree murder is by far the most likely scenario to explain what happened to Caylee Anthony. But Pro and I agree that there is not enough evidence to support this verdict. Manslaughter however is clear. Suggesting anything else is clearly unreasonable. Voters First off, it is important to note that there is much more evidence that was not discussed. This debate was not about the case itself but the accuracy of the verdict according to our justice system. As this case has gotten much media attention some may disagree with my contentions but I remind all voters that personable opinion of the resolution is a separate question from most convincing argument. I’d like to thank Pro for this debate. It certainly has been fun and I wish my opponent luck in the voting and in his career in law. (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...