darth_ender said:

To me there was a little doubt, but to me, reasonable doubt is not the same as beyond any doubt.

RIGHT! One of the first things that I discovered when I was on a jury, was that most of the people in the room thought things had to be proven beyond all doubt. Geez, if that was the case, nobody would ever get convicted of anything. The first thing the 2 or 3 of us in the room with a functioning cerebrum had to do was explain to everyone else that the word "doubt" is preceded by the word "reasonable", not the word "all".

I should add that my experience is not an indictment of people in general. During jury selection, I watched many smart, qualified people get rejected by the lawyers. It was clear they wanted maliable people on the jury who could be manipulated by their arguments. I was only 25 at the time, so they liked me. A local professor was a prospective juror in the same room, and he was rejected immediately. (One of the lawyers indeed tried to snow us with a bit of logical "slight of hand", but a couple of the jurors saw through it).