The Anthony defense obviated all but two possibilities. The jury just picked the one with absolutely no evidence to support it.
“The Anthony defense obviated all but two possibilities.”
Explain this, because I don’t understand. Anyway, it is up to the prosecution to prove its case, and if the jury can come up with any reasonable scenario where what the prosecution speculates happened didn’t happen, then they are obliged not to convict.
“The Anthony defense obviated all but two possibilities. The jury just picked the one with absolutely no evidence to support it.”
I’ve thought about what you said here, and that dog won’t hunt. Think about it, you’re saying that either the jury had to believe the defense’s theory about the accidental drowning or the prosecution’s about Casey suffocating her or whatever, and it should have been the latter because there was more evidence for it. But you don’t convict on the basis of which side has more evidence to support their theory. You convict on the prosecution proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nothing the defense does can “obviate” other possibilities. But even if it could, just because there’s no evidence for the drowning scenario doesn’t mean it isn’t plausible or that the prosecution’s evidence rules it out. Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense doesn’t need as much evidence for its theories, or really any evidence at all. It depends on how strong the prosecution’s case is, and if they don’t jump over the reasonable doubt bar, wild theories can run wild.