Why Bill Schmalfeldt's Article About Caylee Anthony is Stupid
There's a rather popular article on Technorati this evening entitled NOBODY Killed Caylee Anthony written by a gentlemen named Bill Schmalfeldt. The article in question is a "satire" (scare quotes, motherfucker!) piece about how the author obviously doesn't understand the basic concepts of the judicial system while complaining about the verdict.
Bob, (is it ok if I call you Bob, Bill? (It's just super easy for me to say Bob instead of adhering to conventions of conversation and established societal rules (Holy shit; this is a third nested parenthetical inside of a comma delineated parenthetical element (The part of the sentence, that is quite literally this part of the sentence, that explains things.). Oh Shit that's FOUR of them and a meta-syntactical self-reference. Take that David Foster Wallace!))) you should know some very basic things about the judicial system.
First and foremost, Bob, they found her Not Guilty. That doesn't mean that -nobody- killed her; it just means that the jury found her mother incapable of receiving the blame for the crime she was committed for. What it really means is that the prosecuting attorneys failed to over come the defending attorney's arguments. You based your entire article off of the idea that nobody murdered her. The jury did not decide that there wasn't foul play. They simply decided that there wasn't enough evidence to say, with out a doubt, that the mother didn't murder her.
I know little to nothing about the actual case. I admittedly didn't even know it was a thing until earlier today. One thing I do know is that, if you had any recollection of any other big case trial, you'd remember that the defendant was found Not Guilty in the criminal court, but in the civil court, he was fined/caused to pay reparations quite heavily. In criminal court, you are required to prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt. This isn't just a a John Grisham plot device, it's an actual thing. Wikipedia gives an overview of what this means: If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met. However, in civil cases, the courts tend to use a level of proof called "Preponderance of the Evidence". This just means that the prosecutors have to proof that it was probably that she killed her daughter. That's not so hard to do.Continued on the next page