Pattye Benson

Community Matters


Add a Comment
  1. It was up to the state to prove she did it. They could not prove without a doubt she did it. We as people can all assume she did it, but that does not mean she did. It could have been her father. It could have been her, but in reality we do not know if it was her. Like a couple of officers/lawyers/etc. that I talked to about this situation, they all stated that they arrested her to early without enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I love our justice system because it takes 12 people to come together for you to be convicted. If there is any doubt, you shouldn’t be convicted for capitol murder (aka death penalty). Don’t think it as Caylee will not get justice, because this happens all the time in cases, as well as the opposite, people get wrongly convicted as well. That’s not justice either, but we still have the best system in the world.

    1. “It was up to the state to prove she did it. They could not prove without a doubt she did it.”

      That’s not the standard. The standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” not “to the exclusion of any other possibility.” Most murder cases are based on circumstantial evidence, as this one was. Just because there’s not some time-coded video recording of the murder actually taking place doesn’t mean it didn’t happen exactly as the prosecution laid it out. This jury failed. They were either confused, or stupid, or sympathized with the wrong party, but whatever they did, they ignored what was by far the most likely scenario.

      This is the kind of outcome that bolsters the argument for moving from a jury system to a magisterial system.

  2. ” They could not prove without a doubt she did it. ”

    That is not the standard. It is beyond a “reasonable” doubt. Too much TV justice…too much forensic magic. Is it REASONABLE to conclude that this mother played a role in this child’s death. Is it reasonable to conclude that she wemt 30 days without reporting her absence, with no clue as to why she was missing?

    And I believe the reference to OJ is to the process of a verdict that does not comport with the evidence that the viewing public was aware of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme