The abuse of statistics aside, it's weird that the charges/convictions (at least as described in the article) jump straight to outright murder. Did prosecutors

The abuse of statistics aside, it's weird that the charges/convictions (at least as described in the article) jump straight to outright murder. Did prosecutors in these cases present any evidence demonstrating intent? If not, then do these legal systems not have concepts of negligence? Unintentional homicide/manslaughter? Incompetence? In any case, do these legal systems not presume innocence until actually proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, then these cases seem like perfect case studies as to why said presumption of innocence is mandatory for a society to be considered free and just - and if they do presume innocence, then I'm baffled by how these cases not only resulted in convictions but upheld convictions given the abundance of reasonable doubt.