NO REASONABLE DOUBT OF MURDER WHEN MURDER CAN'T BE PROVEN?

This isn't the first time that I've seen a jury convict on a murder charge despite the failure of anyone to prove there was a murder at all. To me that is the first and foremost step necessary to obtain a murder conviction. There has to be a murder and it must be 100%. The case in today's Waterloo Region Record involves a Toronto mother accused of smothering her disabled teenage daughter. The tragedy of her young death is only compounded by the mother's conviction when there simply was no proof that the daughter had been smothered as the Crown alleged. A pathologist indciated that the daughter's death could have been caused by smothering but that he couldn't prove it. Seizures, lumg infections and other medical causes could have resulted in the daughter's cardiac arrest, not just the alleged smothering. I find this apparent need to assign blame very strange in cases of sudden death when medical professionals are unable to come to an agreement on cause of death. The title of today's story in the Record is "Mother found guilty in death of disabled teen".