Why do people keep saying Casey Anthony is guilty when she was proven innocent?

First answer She was not "PROVEN" innocent The prosecution was unable to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt She was convicted on a minor charge Since she was convicted of the minor charge by definition she is not Another Answer: First, there is an enormous difference between "not guilty" and "innocent". The jury determined that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of the charges. That should not be interpreted as a finding of innocence Most of the public, and even a few jurors who have spoken publicly since the verdict, believe that she is probably guilty.

However, in the United States, "probable guilt" is not sufficient. The standard is "beyond any reasonable doubt", not "probably". Given the lack of some critical pieces of evidence, particularly the lack of a cause of death, the jury could not return a guilty verdict Public opinion does not conform to such a high standard of proof.

Many people are enraged that someone who is probably guilty will go free. They do not understand that our legal system is based on the moral standard summarized by Blackstone's Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent person be punished.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.