Wudge,
You keep repeating over and over beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt is not some form of all encompassing shield that allows any off the wall explanation of a crime to exist in the mind of a juror. Nor does it mean if there is any doubt in their mind they must acquit, as that doubt must be considered with in reason to the average reasonable person. It does not state beyond the shadow of doubt. In this case I would argue that any other explanation in this case regarding Caseys guilt is in fact not reasonable to the average reasonable person (assuming they arent just playing devils advocate, just to do so). This is what reasonable doubt is, just in case there are any questions.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: is the standard of proof required in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.
Also beyond reasonable doubt can be maintained by only circumstantial evidence. I suggest you look into People v. Scott 176 Cal. App. 2d 458. This case mainly talks about proving murder with out a body but the court also talks about the weight of circumstantial evidence and how a guilty conviction can stem from only circumstantial evidence. People v. Scott further more goes on to explain how circumstantial evidence can be used in the establishment of the corpus delicti of murder.
In that case the individual was convicted of murder with no body. Further more there was no evidence of violence or other means of death (much like this case). The circumstantial evidence of that case pointed to a conclusion (assumption if you will) of the victim being murdered and the evidence in that case is less then the circumstantial evidence already presented in this case. That and the actions (lies) of the defendant in the establishment of guilt were used, much like this case.
Please go read People v. Scott 176 Cal. App. 2d 458 as it pretty much addresses every point you have been trying to make and pretty much refutes most of them.
Welcome.
The complete standard you refer to is "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt, and that proof must be based on the prosecution providing highly reliable evidence that is necessary to support the charge. In this case, the major charge is murder one.
To prove murder one beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors must present highly reliable evidence (clear and unyielding) that proves four required elements for a murder one conviction. These four necessary elements that must be proved by the prosecutors producing highly reliable evidence at trial are: intent (wilfull), planning (premeditation), deliberation (consideration) and malice aforethough (evil mind).
It's also important to understand that jurors must deliberate and reach their decision as instructed by the trial judge. Given the facts in this case, a few boilerplate jury instructions bear noting. The first instruction that bears noting is that the judge will tell jurors they are not permitted to speculate. Another key instruction the judge will give to jurors is that if the defense provides a reasonable explanation for an item of circumstantial evidence that prosecutors hold to be inculpatory evidence, jurors must accept the defense's explanation. In other words, if the defense provides a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, jurors cannot use that evidence to support a guilty verdict (they must "yield" to the defense). This is true even if the prosecution's explanation (view) of the evidence is deemed to be far more reasonable; e.g., 70/30 in favor of the prosecution's view or 80/ 20 or 90/10, etc..
Most importantly, a critical review of the evidence in this case shows that the State has neither a witness nor a confession nor a crime scene nor forensic evidence from a crime scene. Moreover, the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death are unknown as is the mechanism of her death, the place of her death, the cause of her death and the date of her death.
Clearly, many people speak poorly of Casey's behavior and allege it to represent concsiounness of guilt, and many people also hold Casey to have made false and/or misleading statements. Nevertheless, the judge will instruct the jury that, at best, such evidence represents corroborative evidence, not inculpatory evidence. And it's this lack of highly reliable inculpatory evidence that is the basis for my position that the evidence we know of is insufficient to support the State's premeditated murder charge.
(Feel free to lay out the evidence and/or premises you maintain proves intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought.)
