I would have voted the same way - but can you give me a hint to the basis of your acceptance of reasonable doubt in that case. I want to be able to relate your mindset to this case. For example - John and myself were on the same side you were for OJ - not proven - but we are not on the same side here - what was so different about that case for you?
Did you follow the OJ trial at all? There was overwhelming physical evidence and motive that could not be explained away, even if you come up with the most ridiculous conspiracy theories possible. OJ walked because his lawyers got the dumbest jury possible, they did not deliberate the evidence at all.
Now I have been following the Westerfield threads and your contributions, and have come to believe that Westerfield didn't do it, because of the small amount of physical evidence and weak motive. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.