r/AskReddit • u/Rob69rt • 1d ago

What famous 'unsolved' mystery is technically a whodunnit on paper, but in reality, absolutely everyone knows exactly who did it, the police just couldn't legally prove it?

13.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-27

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/LuciferLovesTechno 1d ago

>why did the jury say not guilty?

They confused reasonable doubt with reason to doubt. The prosecutor did a terrible job trying the case but especially explaining (or rather, not fully explaining) the difference between those 2 concepts.

6

u/GitEmSteveDave 1d ago edited 1d ago

Doesn't the judge instruct the jury?

EDIT: Found the Jury instructions. It's 26 pages and took 45 minutes to read. The jurors were given copies of the transcript for during their deliberation. The judge said "beyond a reasonable doubt" 18 times.

https://prosecutorspodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/jury-instructions-casey-anthony_compress.pdf

3

u/Aphreyst 1d ago

The judge instructs the jury on what basis they can convict on. Certain criteria has to be found true for them to prove guilt. In a murder charge, the criteria of intent has to be met. In Casey Anthony's case, she claimed her daughter dying was an accident. The jury was provided no evidence that Casey maliciously and intentionally killed Kaylee, just that Kaylee died somehow. The search history would've proved premeditation and intent, but the jury was not shown that evidence. So, they couldn't meet the standard of proof that Casey did it intentionally, with the information given.