I'm confusing myself here... do you agree...
If I were a juror and I have what I believe to be reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt I should vote not guilty.
The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Right?
If I was a juror, I would HAVE to vote not guilty, because there is not ONE SINGLE piece of evidence that could not be REASONABLY explained in another way. If there IS, I would be willing to debate that, but I have not seen ONE piece of evidence that can meet the standard of, "It HAD to be him."