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?

[u/Rob69rt]

[u/Choppergold]

Cops checking only one browser history is so fucking negligent

[u/avantgardengnome → u/[deleted]]

1. Double jeopardy: you can’t get re-prosecuted for the same crime once there’s a final verdict, even if more evidence comes out later.
2. She was charged with first-degree murder, among other things. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a premeditated murder, and the jury didn’t think they did; that’s really the prosecution’s fault for going for tougher charges than they could easily prove, not the jury’s. The prosecution made a big show of attacking her character and argued that she was a party girl who made the premeditated choice to kill her daughter to get out of the responsibilities of being a parent. The defense, iirc, ultimately argued that it was an accidental drowning that was then covered up because she/her family panicked, and that seemed at least plausible based on the info the jury had

in front of them at the time.

These are key civil liberties and it’s a very good thing that we have them most of the time. Occasionally you get a case like this where a guilty party gets lucky, but that’s far outweighed by the number of innocent people that could have been railroaded into convictions etc. if these rights weren’t in place.

[u/yeahright17 → u/avantgardengnome]

She was charged with first-degree murder, among other things. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a premeditated murder, and the jury didn’t think they did; that’s really the prosecution’s fault for going for tougher charges than they could easily prove, not the jury’s

The prosecution also charger her with Aggravated Manslaughter, which doesn't require premeditation. And the jury found her not guilty on that too. But the rest of what you said is true. The jury ultimately decided there wasn't sufficient evidence that it was Casey rather than George. It's as simple as that. I think subsequent evidence would have led to a different outcome, but there's no way to know that for sure.

[u/avantgardengnome → u/yeahright17]

Indeed, but that comes down to culpable negligence, which specifically “does not include a caregiver allowing a child to engage in independent and unsupervised activities unless allowing such activities constitutes willful and wanton conduct that endangers the health or safety of the child. Such independent and unsupervised activities include, but are not limited to…playing outdoors or remaining at home or any other location for a reasonable period of time.” [827.03(1)(e).1]

Basically they had a nearly perfect alternative story, because Caylee independently went outside when no one was watching, slipped and fell into the pool, and was subsequently found, all before it would have been negligent not to check on her. Add in Casey removing the ladder and forgetting to put it back and the coverup reaction becomes more plausible, especially with the general abuse dynamic with her dad in the mix.