They forget the word REASONABLE. That is where the emphasis should be placed. Not just on the word doubt. If you apply that word, REASONABLE, then people like Casey, and OJ, would have been found guilty. Because the evidence presented, although not fully conclusive in that it did not place the defendant in the act of murder, certainly was reasonably indicative of the defendant's involvement. There could be doubt...but the circumstantial evidence is more reasonable in showing the defendant's role of murder.
“Reasonable doubt” has become “beyond a shadow of a doubt”.
People don’t know or care to know the difference.