Exactly, the dual nature of the questions make reasonable doubt more likely:
1. If you think there is a 90% chance the child was murdered rather than died accidently and a 90% chance the mother did it, you have a 81% chance the child was murdered and the mother did it.
2. If you think there is a 80% chance the child was murdered rather than died accidently and a 80% chance the mother did it, you have a 64% chance the child was murdered and the mother did it.
3. If you think there is a 70% chance the child was murdered rather than died accidently and a 70% chance the mother did it, you have a 49% chance the child was murdered and the mother did it.
So where is reasonable doubt? Less than 95% or less than 70% or less than 50%?
So I guess I would say, I think there is about a 70% chance the child was murdered and about an 90% chance if so the mother did it, so I am at about 63%, but 37% doubt seems to me pretty reasonable when talking about the kinds of penalties involved here.
I wouldn’t convict someone of speeding on a 70% probability. This isn’t a civil case where the standard is the preponderance of the evidence — it’s higher by design. As for the folks who are outraged, you win some, you lose some, but the duty of a jury is to check their emotions at the door and follow the law.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean “100% certain.”