Good point. I will just post what I said in the last thread: Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt". That being said, how do we prove with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that person A killed person B? I don't think we can. If humans are inherently flawed, then the systems of government, laws, and courts humans create must also be inherently flawed. To prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is to provide direct evidence or enough circumstantial evidence that all other possible outcomes become so outlandish that the story told by the prosecution is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Direct evidence is having a witness testify that he or she saw the suspect stab the victim with a knife. Circumstantial evidence is having a witness testify that he or she saw the suspect walk into a house, heard screams, and saw the witness walk out with a bloody knife. Circumstantial evidence assumes the guilt and is therefore circular logic, rendering it useless on its own. Paired with direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can be used to strengthen and even solidify the case. In the case of Casey Anthony, there was far too much circumstantial evidence to even come near convicting her of 1st degree murder. Is this system foolproof? Is there 100% certainty in every case? Is there 100% certainty in any case? No, but the subjectivity lies in that jurors are not exposed to outside media nor do they have contact with persons outside of the courtoom and for good reason. They are the physical representation of the lady in robes; blindfolded and holding the scale. If one side is compelling enough to outweigh the other, then the applicable verdict must be given.