What bothers me, but I can't articulate so well, is proof beyond reasonable doubt is an evidential standard - you don't collect up reasonable doubts in a bucket, nor edge ahead on the scoreboard.
Traditionally, one made analogies about a braided rope, with evidential strands - maybe you could cut one but the rope held. Or a puzzle with missing pieces but you could still see the picture etc etc
So to take the issue of whether or not the defendant was genuinely upset - the defence may have succeeded in undermining an allegation from which guilt could be inferred. Which is like cutting a strand of the rope. What they didn't do is score some points or collect a reasonable doubt.
As a question of logic, we ask juries to first consider all the facts that have been established, then make logical and obvious inferences, and only then ask if the burden of proof is met. Analysing cases in terms of landing heavy blows and collecting up reasonable doubts as you go along invites logical fallacy IMO. Whether or not he was crying doesn't raise any reasonable doubt of itself. You just maybe cannot infer anything from it now.
Apologies if anyone finds this pedantic, but to my old school tradition, this style of analysis seems wrong headed.
IMO
